Right to Life Ethical Considerations

Your wife doesn't die when you cut her off from your checking account. But the fetus only dies because that one single environment is the only place where it can live.That's tragic, but how is that the mother's fault? You don't have to kill your wife to not be married to her anymore. And if it were possible to transplant fetuses, I'd support that in lieu of abortion wherever possible.But it isn't. There's no way to terminate a pregancy where the fetus doesn't die. How is that the mother's fault? Nothing, but it isn't the termination of pregnancy. You still go through the pregnancy and the delivery. It's not a symmetric alternative to abortion, it's something completely different. Those were wanted pregancies. You were invited and allowed to stay. Bully for you, I guess.How is that relevant in the least to what we're discussing, which is women who have fetuses growing within them that they do not want there? You've just got no idea of what we're talking about here, do you? This isn't anything close to what most abortions are like. Typically, in an abortion, the cervyx is dialated and a tool is used to scrape the inside of the uterus. What comes out isn't arms and legs. There's more mass to the placenta at that point than to the fetus. If you didn't know what a fetus at that stage looked like, you would never recognize it amongst the placental mass. No. But a 4-month old baby doesn't require one specific uterus to survive. What it requires can be provided by any adult, so what would be the sense in killing it? It's needless.It's unfortunate that there's no way to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't kill the fetus. That's a sad thing, don't get me wrong.But how is that the mother's fault? You were born, obviously. You went through it. Somehow everybody, including the law, recognizes birth when it happens, except for you, apparently. How is it that you can be unclear on what this process is? Fair enough. I believe that's true, as well. Don't you think it's maybe better that that happens in a hospital room with doctors, rather than in the back alley of some Mexican hellhole with a fucking coathanger?Boy, I do. Certainly the law should try to prevent the things that society rejects. But the law can't prevent what society has already accepted. That's why laws against downloading music always fail - people want to do it anyway. That's why laws against abortion didn't work when they were tried, too - people got abortions anyway. Why bother trying to make illegal what people are going to do anyway? Seems like a waste of time, to me. But anyone can see that you're the one who doesn't know what it entails. Anybody who talks about "partial-birth abortion", which is a mythical, not a medical, proceedure, simply doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. They have no knowledge of abortion from a medical perspective - only from the scaremongering, bloody-fetus perspective of the abortion foes, who obviously have a vested interest in making the process appear as gory and horrible as possible. What is taboo? Abortion is legal in all 50 states, just as it was legal in all 13 colonies at the beginning of this nation. There was a breif period there in the middle where you couldn't have an abortion legally in the US, but even during that time, people sought to terminate their pregnancies.People have been terminating pregnancies since the dawn of time. Either naturally, via their own bodies, or intentionally, via drugs or proceedures. The vast majority of human pregnancies are spontaenously aborted. There's nothing more natural than abortion, seems like. Why do you think it's so hard for women to get pregnant? Because most of the time, even if fertilization is successful, the zygote is aborted. Not in every state. And the only reason those laws exist in the first place is to provide a basis for exactly the argument you just made.Isn't that a sad thing? How many men are serving unjustified murder sentences because they've been used as legislative dupes, just so people like you can make disingenuous arguments on internet forums. It's really amazing the depths to which abortion foes will sink - there's absolutely no one they won't screw, just to ensure that women have no right to determine whether or not another person gets to live in their body. Speak out all you like. Be prepared to be - gasp! - disagreed with!

I'm trying to speak your language, trying to meet you halfway. You're asserting the personhood of the fetus. I don't particularly care to determine whether or not a fetus is a person; I think that's nothing but a debate about semantics.You're the one who's so convinced we're talking about people. I'm ambivalent on the personhood issue; it doesn't matter to me. So, as a courtesy, let's use your language for a moment. We'll consider the fetus as a person.So what? What right does a person have to live within someone's body and use resources that don't belong to them? Even if they need it to live, I don't see that they have that right.Thousands of adults die every year, waiting for transplant organs, because there aren't enough organs to go around. But just about everybody has a spare kidney. By your logic, you have no right to refuse surgery to extract that kidney and give it to someone else. Despite the fact that it's invasive and "inconvinient", as I think you put it, your logic would mean that that other person's right to life trumps your right to decide who is allowed inside your body.Well, if you want to go there, that's fine. I expect a photo or something of you in the clinic, having a kidney out to help someone you don't even know. That's your opinion. My opinion is that my position is respectful and considerate of the rights of people to be soverigns of their own bodies, and your position is an abominanable, sexist view that reduces women to nothing more than apartments with a nine-month lease - that your rights can be ignored at any time another human being is determined to require for living something you may not wish to give them.

But that responsibility can be passed to another in a process called "adoption."There's no way, however, to transplant a fetus into another's uterus. Outside of that one single individual, the fetus cannot survive. Thus the termination of pregnancy, which the mother has every right to do because of her right to determine who may live inside her body, results in the destruction of the fetus. It's not intentional, the intent is to evict someone from the uterus, but that sadly results in death.That's too bad, but it's a biological fact of life. How is it the mother's fault? I think I've asked you that before. Fetuses aren't grown-up, self-aware, or independant. What's your point? The adult that needs your kidney is all those things. What right do you have to sentence him to death simply out of your selfish desire to not be inconvinienced by the loss of your kidney? To not have surgeons poking around inside if you don't wish it?Please, address the point. Your response does not. Lol! Leave the internet psychology to the professionals, bub.Like I said, address the point. The fact that you've started to attack me personally convinces me that I've said something you don't have a response for.

Oh, Holmes, bug off. As loudly as you complain when it happens to you, I would have thought you would have been the last person to gang up for the personal attacks.Of course, that's because I assumed that, for all your faults, at least you weren't a hypocrite. It's amazing how you so consistently slide right in beneath even my lowest expectations.I don't hate women because they can have children. That's idiotic and you should have known better than to agree with it. Absolutely nothing that I've said could possibly indicate that except to the most depraved mind, desperate to distort my meaning at every turn.I believe that human beings have a right to body soverignty. I believe that a woman is more than an apartment with a nine-month lease. I believe that she is a human being who gets the final say over what other human beings are allowed to take up residence within her, and maintain that residence.It's 100% no surprise to me that you're siding with the abortion foes. Any time you see Crash and Scraf arguing a position, there you are on the other side. I imagine that if Schraf and I started talking about how bad cancer was, you'd pop up and tell us what idiots we were, and how great cancer can be.Your sick contrarian obsession is something you need to seek help for.I'll just sit right here and wait for the suspension. Holmes gets a free pass, of course, for whatever idiotic ad hominem he cares to spout off.

She didn't. I mean, that seems pretty obvious to me. She didn't "put" anything anywhere. The action that attached a fetus into her endometrium was done by the fetus, not by anybody else. Since they don't exist, none. The term serves only the purpose of inflaming emotions and confusing the debate. It's not a real thing that happens, it's a scare term used by abortion foes. Yeah. Lucky us. Irrelevant! Call what? Your webpage isn't loading for me. That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course that's not true. Think about it for a minute. A 4-month old is dependant, yes, but not on anybody specifically. Any competent adult can fulfill those responsibilities.You can't put a fetus in someone else's uterus. So taking a fetus out of a uterus - which is entirely at the discretion of the owner of that uterus, which is the woman by the way - neccesitates the death of the fetus.That's sad, but it's a biological reality. How is that the owner of the uterus's fault? Well, tough shit. It's going to.Don't you think that, as responsible adults, we should deal with reality as it is, and not as we wish it were? I don't think you understood my argument, or if you did, you're purposefully distorting it. I invite you to go back, reread, and try this time to provide a legitimate response. Implicating women who have abortions as terrorists does not constitute such a response. More scaremongering gore from abortion foes. You're just like those people that drive the trucks around with the bloody miscarriages on the side, aren't you? I hate those guys.You know, for the side that supposedly respects the "dignity of life", you folks are pretty quick to capitalize on tragedy for your own purposes. Your sick fascination with all this is something I find pretty disgusting and ghoulish.Let's talk about real abortions:

quote:

---

suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common method. [11] Manual vacuum aspiration, or MVA abortion, consists of removing the fetus or embryo by suction using a manual syringe, while the Electric vacuum aspiration or EVA abortion method uses an electric pump. These techniques are comparable, differing in the mechanism used to apply suction, how early in pregnancy they can be used, and whether cervical dilation is necessary. MVA, also known as "mini-suction" and "menstrual extraction," can be used in very early pregnancy, and doesn't require cervical dilation. Surgical techniques are sometimes referred to as STOP: 'Suction (or surgical) Termination of Pregnancy'. From the fifteenth week up until around the twenty-sixth week, a surgical dilation and evacuation (D & E) is used. D & E consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction.

​

Dilation and curettage (D & C) is a standard gynaecological procedure performed for a variety of reasons, including examination of the uterine lining for possible malignancy, investigation of abnormal bleeding, and abortion. Curettage refers to the cleaning of the walls of the uterus with a curette. The World Health Organization recommends this sort of procedure, also called Sharp Curettage, only when MVA is unavailable. [12] Sharp curettage only accounted for 2.4% of abortion procedures in the US in 2002. [3] The term "D and C", or perhaps suction curette, etc, is sometimes used as a euphemism to refer to the first trimester abortion procedure, irrespective of the method used to perform the procedure.

---

from Abortion - WikipediaWhat, are you just not paying attention? This claim is 100% false. Well over half of Americans, in all recent polls, support the rights of women to have abortions. Less than 15% of Americans believe, as you do, that no woman should be permitted to have an abortion under any circumstances. No, in fact, it's normal. It's the natural result of well over half of all conceptions.

You really think that's what he was saying? Read again, Holmes.

quote:

---

This is your view and your issue. It is where all your anger comes from. Everything you say shouts that you hate what a womans body is and you take it out on others. The fact that women bare children is unfair to you. Your cynical non human view of the birth experience is as far to the right as they get. Care to challenge that claim? Run for any public office and speak as you have here...

​

Again...a shout that a fact of what it is to be a human female abhors you. Therfore you choose to deny it. You hate the fact that sex makes babies and women get "stuck" with it. To fix this injustice unborn children are not human to you. Emotional detachment.

---

And for you to agree with that bullshit: and tell him how "wonderful" he summed me up is just unconscionable. Disgusting. And futher proof, as if any was needed, that you're not here to do anything except disagree with Schraf and I. Maybe you could make that a little clearer by refraining from telling our opponents how "wonderful" they are when they smear us with these incredible ad hominems. Holmes, if this is what you intended, then your writing borders on the incompetent. (I'm beginning to have very little difficulty indeed believing that you held a science position within the federal government. Your incredible communication gaffes would fit right in with the Bush administration.) Your post was an almost panting affirmation of every smear 2B had just leveled at me. "Dead on the money", you called it.Really? You think it's "dead on the money" to say that I hate women because they can do something I can't? You think it's "dead on the money" to say that I hate children and I want them all aborted? Because that's exactly what you agreed with in your post.Against my better judgement, I'll assume for the moment that what you're saying now is what you intended then. But I would reccommend that you discontinue your participation in this debate. You're an absolutely incompetent writer and your amazing communication errors are a distraction. Seriously, I've never met anyone as bad at this as you would have us believe. It's becoming much, much easier to believe that you're simply lying - that you said exactly what you intended to say then, and you're simply backpedalling from it now to avoid sanction.Honestly I don't know why the admins let you play this game as long as you have. Probably they're not reading your posts, either. I guess I should go back to not doing that, too.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Why bother, Holmes? You've already shown how you deal with a detailed catalogue of your distortions - you ignore it.

Holmes!

quote:

---

This is your view and your issue. It is where all your anger comes from. Everything you say shouts that you hate what a womans body is and you take it out on others. The fact that women bare children is unfair to you. Your cynical non human view of the birth experience is as far to the right as they get. Care to challenge that claim? Run for any public office and speak as you have here...

​

Again...a shout that a fact of what it is to be a human female abhors you. Therfore you choose to deny it. You hate the fact that sex makes babies and women get "stuck" with it. To fix this injustice unborn children are not human to you. Emotional detachment.

---

What is wrong with you? I "abhor women." I'm "cynical" and my views are "non-human". I "hate women's bodies."Are you just not reading the posts, or what? If you think 2B is making some kind of limited, uncontentious claim, you're insane. He couldn't possibly be clearer in his belief that I hate women for doing something I can't - generate children. He certainly hasn't denied that interpretation. Whoopy-shit, Holmes. Do you think you're the only one who's ever gotten a gold star?

Indeed. For instance, no one has a right to demand that another human being make a space for them within their uterus. No one has a right to demand the physical resources of one other human being against their consent, even if they need it to live.The right that I'm referring to is an absolute right to oneself. The right to determine what other human beings are allowed to reside within one's body is absolute. She's responsible for nothing more than evicting an unwanted squatter. That the squatter is going to die as a result is a tragedy, but how is that the woman's fault? Nobody can seem to tell me that. Hrm. See if you can try your argument again, only without the ad hominem. You're free to hold that position, of course, but I guess I'd like to see you support it with some evidence.

No one's asserted that anybody has an "absolute right to do anything they like with a fetus", so you're arguing against a strawman.What has been asserted is that women have an absolute right to determine who is allowed to reside within their bodies at any time, just as all humans do. They have an absolute right to determine who may benefit from the resources of their bodies, just as all humans do.If a dialysis patient kidnapped you and stole one of your kidneys, you would properly frame that as an assault on your person. Even though they needed it to live. If you don't think women have the same right, then you're simply being sexist. It's the classical definition.You have an absolute right to refuse to be a donor in a kidney transplant, even if someone needs it to live. And make no mistake, thousands die every year waiting for the kidneys you're refusing to give them. But you have every right to refuse. You even have the right to consent and then back out at the last minute. You can change your mind at any time.Women have the same right. That they may or may not have consented to sex is irrelevant. They have the absolute right to change their mind about who may live within them at any time, just as you do. They have every right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason they see fit, or for no reason, because their right to determine who lives within them is absolute. That the fetus dies as a result of this eviction proceedure is a tragedy, but it's biological reality. How is that the mother's fault?