Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Laws aren't set in stone, thus the debate.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, it's not. It's a debate about whether it is better to allow a woman to end a pregnancy that she neither wants nor needs by killing a fetus that has no legal rights because it can't survive without the co operation of the mother in a way that is safe for that mother who probably has other children to nurture or in a fashion that risks the health of that mother. That is what the debate is about.

[HAL 9000 96]

Laws aren't set in stone, thus the debate.

Sure. That's why some folks insist on changing what constitutes fact in those X, Y, and Z factors.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

[SMR 368]

No, it's not. It's a debate about whether it is better to allow a woman to end a pregnancy that she neither wants nor needs by killing a fetus that has no legal rights because it can't survive without the co operation of the mother in a way that is safe for that mother who probably has other children to nurture or in a fashion that risks the health of that mother. That is what the debate is about.

Are you really arguing that a person doesn't have legal rights if they can't survive without the cooperation of someone else? Because that description fits a lot of people that aren't fetuses. It also includes children to an age of several years, developmentally challenged individuals, some elderly, and more broadly, anyone that isn't Kit Carson, since most people rely on society in some way to meet their basic needs. Stating that someone's right to life is based solely on their ability to insure that right without help is reprehensible, preposterous, and unprecedented.

More directly, the child's ability to survive outside of the womb doesn't discretely change at any point in development. That is, children have survived that were delivered after 21 weeks of pregnancy. As medical technology progresses, this date keeps moving forward in the pregnancy. Others die even after surviving to full term. A six month old baby would starve to death in a couple days (at most) if you stopped feeding it. Yet a mother who stopped feeding her baby would be charged with murder (manslaughter at a minimum).

This is a debate about whether or not a fetus has human rights. Stating that the current law states that the rights of the mother trump the rights of the child currently is irrelevant. The current law isn't admissible supporting evidence in a debate about what the law should be. If it was, the law would never change.

Edited October 15, 2009 by SMR

[Peikko 1,575]

Again, you are missing the point. It's not that a fetus is dependent in that sense - it's a fundamental life and death dependence. The fetus CANNOT LIVE without the mother. END OF STORY.

Once you get that point, you'll cease with this drivel.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

They have a right to choose whether they spread their legs.

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Didn't have a problem going through with the sex though!

[Peikko 1,575]

Seriously, you can't be that moronic. The fetus can't survive outside of a very specific environment, one that the womb and only the womb can provide. You can argue the toss about at what point the fetus becomes viable but for the sake of jurisprudence the rights of the baby only begin once the baby has been born. It's that simple.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

They have a right to choose whether they spread their legs.

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Didn't have a problem going through with the sex though!

Yes, Joe. Unless we're talking about prostitutes (but... even then) Women can choose when they have sex.

So what?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

rights of the baby only begin once the baby has been born. It's that simple.

Mainly because it made you guys feel better about murdering them.

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

They have a right to choose whether they spread their legs.

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Didn't have a problem going through with the sex though!

Yes, Joe. Unless we're talking about prostitutes (but... even then) Women can choose when they have sex.

So what?

There's where the freedom of choice is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No Joe. It isn't.

That's you inserting your moral judgement into the story.

[Peikko 1,575]

rights of the baby only begin once the baby has been born. It's that simple.

Mainly because it made you guys feel better about murdering them.

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

They have a right to choose whether they spread their legs.

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Didn't have a problem going through with the sex though!

Yes, Joe. Unless we're talking about prostitutes (but... even then) Women can choose when they have sex.

So what?

There's where the freedom of choice is.

I have not problem with the notion of killing fetus under these circumstances. I don't need to feel better about it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Eventually technology will allow fetuses to grow outside a human womb...what then?

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Men also have a choice about where (and into whom, if I must be crude) they deposit their sperm.

Biology hasn't given us much room for compromise if one person wants the pregnancy to continue and the other does not.