Originally posted by bbarrWhile I am forming a reply to J Thomsons violinist analogy I would like to ask you a question. You say, "(You) do think that fetuses are human beings, but (you) do not think that they have any rights at all until late in their gestation." I think all humans have unalienable rights. What happens late in gestation which gives an unborn their rights?
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, irony does not exist in my statement. I am a freedom-loving person, and as such, I watch out for the other's freedom, because if another loses their freedom I might lose mine. My sense of community comes alot from enlightened self-interest.
"Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell someone what they don't want to hear."
This is an extremely ironic quote from someone proposing that women who exercise self-autonomy over their bodies might be eligible for execution, don't you think?
Mens rea is simple in this case; a woman who would have an abortion would b ...[text shortened]... ly "killing" her "baby". That would seem to warrant the severest penalty the law allows.
I do not like to see abortion taking place where convenience is touted as self-autonomy and then placed over the right to life. It's bad on the neighborhood.
Originally posted by whodeywhy not have a stir-fry? cooking is art, too.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html
Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.
T ...[text shortened]... shock -- sayging the project does everything from violate moral code to trivializing abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliza_Shvarts
[edit] Initial reports
On April 17, 2008, the Yale Daily News printed an article detailing the process by which Shvarts reportedly inseminated herself artificially as many times as possible over the course of nine months, during which she also induced abortions using abortifacient drugs.[1] The proposed exhibition of the project was to feature video recordings of the forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.[2] Shvarts declared that the goal of the project was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body.[3]
"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts declared. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."[3] FOX News reported that Wanda Franz, President of the National Right to Life Committee denounced Shvarts as a serial killer with "major mental problems", and likened her process of artificial insemination and induced miscarriages to Nazi experiments during the Holocaust.[4]
[edit] Yale College statement and rebuttal
Several hours after the initial story broke and a firestorm of press coverage brought down the Yale Daily News website, Yale College issued a press release[5] affirming that the miscarriages and exhibit were performance art. In the press release, the university spokesperson revealed that rather than the alleged cube of miscarried remains, the performance had consisted in the invention of the story of their creation. "Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art," it read. "Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body."[5][1] Shvarts, in a guest article for the Yale Daily News maintained that she had conducted artificial inseminations as well as self-induced miscarriage procedures (although she was unaware of whether she was pregnant).[6]
For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages … Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding. ... Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there[sic] was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.
—Aliza Shvarts, Yale Daily News, April 18, 2008[6]
Robert Storr, dean of Yale's art school, threatened to ban Shvarts from displaying her project unless she wrote a confession attesting that the project was a fiction and that no human blood would be used.[7]
Originally posted by zeeblebotMy. my, how we raise kids these days. The schools are a mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliza_Shvarts
[edit] Initial reports
On April 17, 2008, the Yale Daily News printed an article detailing the process by which Shvarts reportedly inseminated herself artificially as many times as possible over the course of nine months, during which she also induced abortions using abortifacient drugs.[1] The proposed exhibi ...[text shortened]... n attesting that the project was a fiction and that no human blood would be used.[7]
Originally posted by mrstabbyPlease don't mistake me. I am putting the blame for using "word-manipulation" on the pro-abortion group. who for their purposes introduced the use of the word "fetus" for "baby" to make clinical that which was not.
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.
Let's back up a second...A sperm and an ovum are not human beings. They each have only 23 chromosomes and die within a short time of their production. When united they form a 46-chromosome human lacking only in development, development that does not stop until we die if we stay healthy. This is why a zygote is a human being, although, yes, immature.
You believe an unborn is a "ball of cells" and not a human being. When exactly do you believe this "ball of cells" achieves person-NESS?
Originally posted by whodeyObviously you don't know what a privilege is - that's a special entitlement or immunity. I have the right to answer any question I wish.
An example of a privledge would be the oppurtunity to answer a question. Now when will you answer my question? If I came into your house would you have the right to kill me?
In answer to your question no I would not. I would however be allowed to remove you from the premises, even if you had nowhere to go, which is what the abortion pill in effect does.
Originally posted by rhemalogosI'm sorry, but I can't see how my using the scientific term word-manipulation. Some people in the pro-abortion group may have used it for emotive purposes just as people in the anti-abortion group use the word baby to evoke emotions. Personally I'd rather be rational and as clinical as possible when debating life or death matters. Both words are equally valid when describing an unborn human, I'll use my preferred word, you use yours. If you accuse me of using a word for an emotive purpose I think that it demonstrates that that is part of the reason you use your word. I could be wrong though.
Please don't mistake me. I am putting the blame for using "word-manipulation" on the pro-abortion group. who for their purposes introduced the use of the word "fetus" for "baby" to make clinical that which was not.
Let's back up a second...A sperm and an ovum are not human beings. They each have only 23 chromosomes and die within a short time of their ...[text shortened]... human being. When exactly do you believe this "ball of cells" achieves person-NESS?
I never said a ball of cells is not human - it is not a person. I think I've defined person-ness enough times in this thread. The terms human and person are not inter-changeable - person implies someone capable certain kinds of thought.
Originally posted by whodeyI have no personal moral opinion on abortion. I don't regard it as "good" or "bad". I know a lot of woman who have had them; I don't think any more or less highly of them because they did so. AS you are undoubtedly aware, however, anyone's personal moral opinion is utterly irrelevant to the issue as to whether there should be criminal laws against abortion.
Just out of curiosity, even though you claim women should have the right to have an abortion, I wonder if you think it is a moral choice to do so? This question stands assuming the unborn is as insignificant in compariosn to those who have been born as you say they are. Is there then nothing morally wrong with abortion in any circmstance in your opinion?
If that is the case, then I suppose you would be in favor of legalized prostitution as well?
I would favor legalized prostitution (you seem insistent in going into other areas) but I wouldn't believe it is required by Natural Rights theory. Government has a more legitimate power to regulate commercial activity between individuals than it does to dictate what "moral" choices individuals can make as regards what's contained within the confines of their own bodies.
My argument doesn't stem from "the perspective that women should have the right to do whatever they wish to do so long as they do not "harm" other people" it stems from the concept of Natural Rights and limited government to protect those rights.
EDIT: Nor do I claim a woman has a right to choose an abortion; I claim that women (like men) have a right to personal self-autonomy and that right encompasses the decision to have an abortion or not. It's best to be clear with you as you have problems with understanding these concepts.
Originally posted by rhemalogosOf course being male your "enlightened self-interest" isn't affected by depriving a woman of the right of self-autonomy over her body. What you " do not like to see" is an inadequate reason to have the State start executing woman for having abortions.
No, irony does not exist in my statement. I am a freedom-loving person, and as such, I watch out for the other's freedom, because if another loses their freedom I might lose mine. My sense of community comes alot from enlightened self-interest.
I do not like to see abortion taking place where convenience is touted as self-autonomy and then placed over the right to life. It's bad on the neighborhood.
I see you failed to meaningfully respond to my main point. That's OK; you are not alone in the hypocrisy of stating that abortion is murdering a baby but not having the guts to follow that personal belief to its logical conclusion and insist it should be treated by the criminal law as murder. Obviously, you think a fetus isn't quite a baby after all.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo hypocrisy here. If I do not have the courage to stand for what I believe, inspite of what others think about me, then I lack as a person. I thought about the position it puts me in to say, "In some cases abortion should be considered a capital crime". If I decide that is what is right, then I will say so, but I am not going to be forced to decide before I am ready because someone is mocking me. I have just given you a meaningful response.
Of course being male your "enlightened self-interest" isn't affected by depriving a woman of the right of self-autonomy over her body. What you " do not like to see" is an inadequate reason to have the State start executing woman for having abortions.
I see you failed to meaningfully respond to my main point. That's OK; you are not alon ...[text shortened]... by the criminal law as murder. Obviously, you think a fetus isn't quite a baby after all.
Originally posted by rhemalogosI fail to see why you're having such a moral dilemma over it; you've repeatedly stated you regard abortion as murder in this thread. Why wouldn't murder, esp. the murder of a defenseless child in your view, not warrant the severest penalty the law allows?
No hypocrisy here. If I do not have the courage to stand for what I believe, inspite of what others think about me, then I lack as a person. I thought about the position it puts me in to say, "In some cases women should be given the death penalty for abortion". If I decide that is what is right, then I will say so, but I am not going to be forced to decide before I am ready because someone is mocking me.
Originally posted by rhemalogosFetuses develop minds late in their gestation. They develop the capacity for sentience, and thereby the capacity to experience suffering. Further, they develop the capacities for rudimentary self-awareness and thought. Prior to the development of a mind, fetuses can be harmed only in the limited sense in which plants can be harmed. Prior to the development of a mind, fetuses cannot be harmed from their own point of view, since they have no point of view.
While I am forming a reply to J Thomsons violinist analogy I would like to ask you a question. You say, "(You) do think that fetuses are human beings, but (you) do not think that they have any rights at all until late in their gestation." I think all humans have unalienable rights. What happens late in gestation which gives an unborn their rights?