Abortion as art

Originally posted by whodey
However, assuming the premise that the unborn are human beings with the same rights as you or I, how would you then feel about the same situation?

A fetus does not have the same rights as you and I so there is no need to pretend it does.
It is also a complete mischaracterization to consider all abortions the result of an irresponsible act. Certainly someone who as a severe birth defect might think it is wiser to have a healthy child in the world than a sick brain damaged child who will be a severe financial and emotional burden on the family and then become a warden to the state.
To deny a rape victim an abortion is a travesty. The world does not need the genetics of rapists to be extended. People have a right to decide when in their life they can afford children and with whom they want to have children and who will help them raise children.

Originally posted by mrstabby
Parasites in nature are very often if not usually unable to survive without their host - they are dependent.
You can complain all you like about the use of terminology, I could just as easily say that your inaccurate use of the term "baby" to describe a fetus as trying to manifest feelings of guilt, and trying to create attachment to something that has no ...[text shortened]... mping to conclusions when you see the words "force" and "opinion" in the same sentence.

Terminology matters very much. I am repeating myself, but I read an aritcle dated in the l960's, where a medical doctor was encouraging people to use the word fetus for an unborn baby to avoid the emotions attached to the word baby...My use of the word baby is intentional because that is what we are dealing with. If my use of the word baby gives you pause, considering your views on killing dependent people, that is a GOOD thing, mrstabby.

I do believe abortion should be illegal. Laws protect society in general, and specifically people who are unable to protect themselves. What a jungle we would live in without laws.

The zygote and the early embryo are living human organisms. They are not potential human beings, but are human beings with potential.
I value autonomy very much and respect your right to do the same, but autonomy cannot outweigh a human life.

My use of the word baby is intentional because that is what we are dealing with. If my use of the word baby gives you pause, considering your views on killing dependent people, that is a GOOD thing, mrstabby.

If that is why you use the term then you are affirming both yours and my point that specific words are being used to create or disassociate emotional attachment. A debate should be about logic, not trying to appeal to emotions. I thought that you were against that sort of thing but from your last comment it appears that I'm wrong. I use scientific terminology to be accurate, so as not to include emotions.

It interests me that you should think that laws in society are to protect people. A person is the sum of what an individual has experienced and thought. A foetus that doesn't have the ability to experience or think and so is NOT a person. Your use of the term baby made me stop and think "is this a person we're dealing with or a ball of cells?" It's a ball of cells - for a while it doesn't have the ability to think, respond, act, or anything else that would make it a person.
Laws are there to protect people, not potential people.

Originally posted by mrstabby
If that is why you use the term then you are affirming both yours and my point that specific words are being used to create or disassociate emotional attachment. A debate should be about logic, not trying to appeal to emotions. I thought that you were against that sort of thing but from your last comment it appears that I'm wrong. I use scientific termin lse that would make it a person.
Laws are there to protect people, not potential people.

Are you supporting the arrogance of a student who might decide that just so they could get into the media, they would impregnate themselves and then have an abortion?! Honestly. Fine. My art exhibition will be entitled, "The Shooting of Toddlers", and if it is as popular as I hope, maybe I'll repeat it.

Originally posted by whodey
However, assuming the premise that the unborn are human beings with the same rights as you or I, how would you then feel about the same situation?

I do think that fetuses are human beings, but I do not think that they have any rights at all until late in their gestation. But, even if I did think they had all the rights of persons, I still think abortion would be permissible. Here is a famous thought experiment by Judith Thompson, from her article A Defense of Abortion:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous..."

I think it is permissible to unplug from the violinist, and thereby bring about his death despite him being a person. I see no moral difference between this case and the case of pregnancy resulting from rape. In both cases an innocent dies, but in neither case is this a violation of their rights.

Originally posted by rhemalogos
Yes, her body has been hijacked and I am not saying, "That is her tough luck". I am saying rape is a terrible thing and her rights to autonomy, liberty, and bodily integrity have been violated by THAT.

Killing her own child does not solve the problem. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Aborting the fetus does not solve the problem of rape, but it does the solve the problem of being pregnant as a result of rape. To force her to carry such a fetus to term is to treat her as chattel. It is simply religiously based misogyny.

Originally posted by bbarr
I do think that fetuses are human beings, but I do not think that they have any rights at all until late in their gestation. But, even if I did think they had all the rights of persons, I still think abortion would be permissible. Here is a famous thought experiment by Judith Thompson, from her article A Defense of Abortion:

You wake up in the morn ...[text shortened]... both cases an innocent dies, but in neither case is this a violation of their rights.

Wow! That Judith Thompson has some kind of over active imagination. However, if you cared about the violinist, say he was your son, then I dare say you would probably endure the 9 months. As for myself, I think I would probably give up nine months of my life in order for him to live even if he were a complete stranger, but that is just me. Perhaps that is why I am pro-life and you are pro-choice? 😉

Originally posted by bbarr
Aborting the fetus does not solve the problem of rape, but it does the solve the problem of being pregnant as a result of rape. To force her to carry such a fetus to term is to treat her as chattel. It is simply religiously based misogyny.

Is it religiously based misogyny? I dare say I know of a few pro-lifers that are not religious. Their objection stems from a scientific view point. Of course I suppose you could argue that the majority of pro-lifers are religious.

Originally posted by mrstabby
[b]So you want some people to have rights without responsibilities. That is double standards. Pure and simple. If I were to return to the womb I'd have the same rights as before, but at any time my mother would be perfectly entitled to remove me from there.

Who says I am against being resposible for my own actions? You assume my championing giving rights to the defensless is endorsing people to forgo being responsible for their own actions which is just ludricous.

Originally posted by mrstabby
Are "rights" forever irrevocable? If I invited you into my house does that mean you now have residence rights?
It's a privilege to be allowed to be inside another human being's body.

You do understand the difference between a right and a privilege, yes?[/b]

A right is simply something that has been afforded you by some other power or the power that you yourself have. Therefore, to say that your rights are irrevocable would be to assume that the power in question is irrevocable and unchangable.

Now if you invited me into you house would you have the right to kill me?

Originally posted by leepound
A fetus does not have the same rights as you and I so there is no need to pretend it does.
It is also a complete mischaracterization to consider all abortions the result of an irresponsible act. Certainly someone who as a severe birth defect might think it is wiser to have a healthy child in the world than a sick brain damaged child who will be a severe f ...[text shortened]... afford children and with whom they want to have children and who will help them raise children.

These type of scenerios are endless in the abortion debate. However, the bottom line is, how do you see a newly born infant being different from an uborn infant just minutes before? Using the same logic as you have given me just now, would it be moral to snuff the life of the unborn but not the born infant? Would it be moral to kill them both? In other words, do our rights/worth magically change once out of the womb or should they be treated the same? If they are different, then how? If they are not, then I guess you are in favor of infantiside. Of course we would only be in favor of infantaside if the baby was a direct result of a rape or had a birth defect etc, etc.

Originally posted by whodey
Wow! That Judith Thompson has some kind of over active imagination. However, if you cared about the violinist, say he was your son, then I dare say you would probably endure the 9 months. As for myself, I think I would probably give up nine months of my life in order for him to live even if he were a complete stranger, but that is just me. Perhaps that is why I am pro-life and you are pro-choice? 😉

You have misunderstood. I would give up the nine months of my life as well, because it was the kind thing to do, but I certainly do not feel I have a duty or an obligation to remain plugged in. The point is whether you are morally obligated to give up those nine months because unplugging would be a violation of the violinist's right to life, and relatedly whether it is permissible for the state to force you to lie there for nine months because unplugging would be a violation of the violinist's right to life.

Originally posted by whodey
Is it religiously based misogyny? I dare say I know of a few pro-lifers that are not religious. Their objection stems from a scientific view point. Of course I suppose you could argue that the majority of pro-lifers are religious.

If it is not religiously based, then it is simply misogyny. Your view does not derive from a scientific viewpoint, it derives from the conjunction of a scientific claim "fetuses are members of the human species" with a non-scientific normative claim "all members of the human species have the right to life". Now, I see no reason to grant the second claim in the case of early fetuses, and science is absolutely silent on normative questions.

Originally posted by whodey
A right is simply something that has been afforded you by some other power or the power that you yourself have. Therefore, to say that your rights are irrevocable would be to assume that the power in question is irrevocable and unchangable.

Now if you invited me into you house would you have the right to kill me?

So what's a privilege?

If I invited you into my house and you were homeless, then I decided that you should leave, you went out and died on the streets, what have I done that's morally wrong?

Originally posted by bbarr
You have misunderstood. I would give up the nine months of my life as well, because it was the kind thing to do, but I certainly do not feel I have a duty or an obligation to remain plugged in. The point is whether you are morally obligated to give up those nine months because unplugging would be a violation of the violinist's right to life, and relatedly wh ...[text shortened]... here for nine months because unplugging would be a violation of the violinist's right to life.

I agree, you have no duty - you're perfectly allowed to remove them and say "you're on your own now". Much like abortion