Abortion and covid

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 389
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really and truly believe that someone who would even consider aborting their unborn child SHOULD be a parent of that unborn child ?
Do you really and truly believe that if a parent is unfit to raise their child, that justifies murdering the unborn child?


And even if you could, ONLY AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WOULD HAVE LEGAL STANDING.
Just to be clear, are you saying that murder is okay as long as you can find a loophole regarding wrongful death claims? Or in the context of abortion, rather than closing the loophole, we should protect a woman's "right" to murder her unborn child because there is no one to file a wrongful death claim. Am I understanding you correctly?

Do you "support" the idea of FREE-MARKETS ?
In a sense yes, but I am not a libertarian. For example, I don't see prostitution as a legitimate "business." The government has certain roles in protecting it's citizens, but there will always be tension between a government's authority and it's citizens' freedom.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
So, not including cases of rape, does a woman have a responsibility over the life of their unborn child, and does that responsibility lead to a limit on the bodily autonomy. That is the debate.
To me the answer is no, the woman has no responsibility to the fetus, at least not in it’s early stages.

Arguments differ but I believe the core disagreement in this debate will always be the question of whether we think of a fetus as a human being or not. For most of us I think the rest is just backwards rationalization.

If the fetus is a human being, then the question of responsibility plays a big role, but if not there’s nothing to have responsibility to.

The most common arguments that early stage fetuses are human beings tend to center on the concept of the potential it has to develop into one. But this is flawed, the same argument can be made for anything. My sperm has the potential to become a functioning human being, all I need is an egg. Yet I’m sure no one will argue that a woman denying me access to her egg is murder.

This is what the potential argument comes downs to. The woman’s body is necessarily part of the equation but you cannot include it without her consent, so if she is unwilling then there is no potential. At least there is no potential without removing her rights *first*, but rights for one are not born out of the removal of someone else’s rights.

The other end of the responsibility argument is that the mother is responsible because it was her actions that brought the fetus into existence in the first place. But what were those actions? Having sex. Essentially, the argument here is that a women losing her rights is justified as punishment. But sex in and of itself is not (or at least should not be) a punishable act. It’s a basic human desire which hurts no one, except maybe a fetus who has yet to be shown to be a person.

So for those reasons I am pro choice. Now when it comes to late stage abortions my attitude is different. Once the fetus can survive on its own it’s a different  conversation, and even before that as we get past those early stages and the fetus develops, the responsibility argument gradually carries more weight as it gets closer to what we would recognize as a person. So I don’t have an answer as to where I draw the line exactly, but somewhere between the two.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.

This gnome has attached itself to your power mains and water pipes and is siphoning off an increasing amount of both.

You also realize that if gnome thing keeps growing, it will permanently change the shape of your house.

You also understand that forcibly removing the gnome will likely result in its demise.

Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an unwelcome guest ?

Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an illegal-alien-immigrant ?
These are not at all analogous. A tiny gnome just appearing out of thin air vs a life being born from the very act used to create human life.

And if the argument is that this should be based on "bodily autonomy", then your illegal immigrant analogy is also irrelevant because a country is not a body.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
You might as well ask why rights exist.

Yeah, but I'm too busy asking you why the right to live doesn't exist for those that have been alive for less than ~9 months.

If the bar for personhood is low enough to allow zygotes,  for instance, then many other things - like cancer, gametes, or animals- will qualify for personhood as well.
Zygotes are unique DNA from either parent that wants to murder it. So, not like gametes.
It is human DNA, so it doesn't apply to animals.
It will grow to be a regular human, indistinguishable from others: walking, talking, eating. So it isn't like cancer.

In that case, my criticism of the typical Pro-lifer might not apply to you.

Maybe we can/will discuss this again in a more appropriate time/place. Thanks for the conversation.
For sure. Feel free to copy over to that thread if it ever gets created.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
I hope your not implying once you have an abortion you are damaged and can never parent. 
I'm asking a question.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheMorningsStar
Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.
False analogy, people don't just wake up pregnant.
Well, sure they do. People doing normal people things can find they are unexpectedly pregnant.  
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you really and truly believe that someone who would even consider aborting their unborn child SHOULD be a parent of that unborn child ?
Do you really and truly believe that if a parent is unfit to raise their child, that justifies murdering the unborn child?
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.

What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but I'm too busy asking you why the right to live doesn't exist for those that have been alive for less than ~9 months.
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.

What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@bmdrocks21
Abortion thread is up. When I get a chance, I will respond there.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.

That's the status quo. But simply being the status quo is not an argument in favor of a law.

What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).

And if a unique life created through intercourse was the woman's body, then sure. But it isn't.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
Abortion thread is up. When I get a chance, I will respond there.

Splendid
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
It is human DNA, so it doesn't apply to animals.
Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men [**]

Do you believe that mice should be afforded 97.5% human rights ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.
That's the status quo. But simply being the status quo is not an argument in favor of a law.
Vaguely stating "IS ≠ OUGHT" is not particularly compelling.
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Double_R
The most common arguments that early stage fetuses are human beings tend to center on the concept of the potential it has to develop into one
I have been pro-choice for years and held this view, but it was really shaken when my unborn son died at 28-29 weeks. The reason for his death was because my, now ex, smoked and drank heavily during the first trimester (no matter how much I tried to get her to stop).

The thing is that I am sure we can agree that if killing someone is worse than drugging them (just drugging, nothing more). Even if not, they would be placed on an equal level, drugging someone is not usually seen as worse than killing.

So if we justify killing an unborn in the first trimester, can we take a stance against drugging one? Because it is the development in the first trimester that has the greatest impact on the viability of the unborn. If my ex did that smoking and drinking in the 2nd or 3rd trimester my son would have had a vastly greater chance at having been born. In fact, the later in the pregnancy that one takes drugs on any kind the less it impacts the child.

If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus and medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?

An unborn child in the first trimester isn't just a 'potential human'. Even if we want to keep the label of 'potential' it is a 'potential human in which anything done to will have great impact on an actual human's well being'.

I am also curious how you define 'human' and at what point of development one becomes a 'human'.

Also, I created a new thread to talk about abortion itself since this thread is about 'abortion and covid', so would you like to continue the conversation over there? If so then just quoting what I stated here and respond over there should work well.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
It will grow to be a regular human, indistinguishable from others
This is nowhere close to being guaranteed.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus and medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.

This gnome has attached itself to your power mains and water pipes and is siphoning off an increasing amount of both.

You also realize that if gnome thing keeps growing, it will permanently change the shape of your house.

You also understand that forcibly removing the gnome will likely result in its demise.

Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an unwelcome guest ?

Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an illegal-alien-immigrant ?
These are not at all analogous. A tiny gnome just appearing out of thin air vs a life being born from the very act used to create human life.

And if the argument is that this should be based on "bodily autonomy", then your illegal immigrant analogy is also irrelevant because a country is not a body.
Forget about "abortion" for a minute.

Just consider the hypothetical itself.

Would you consider it "immoral" to "deport" the gnome ?
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Was I understanding you correctly in my analysis of your argument in my post #91?
Just to be clear, are you saying that murder is okay as long as you can find a loophole regarding wrongful death claims? Or in the context of abortion, rather than closing the loophole, we should protect a woman's "right" to murder her unborn child because there is no one to file a wrongful death claim. Am I understanding you correctly?

In response to your post #97:
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.

What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
And black people used to be a de facto piece of property until they were granted freedom by the state.

What a person does with their own property is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Was I understanding you correctly in my analysis of your argument in my post #91?

Just to be clear, are you saying that murder is okay as long as you can find a loophole regarding wrongful death claims? Or in the context of abortion, rather than closing the loophole, we should protect a woman's "right" to murder her unborn child because there is no one to file a wrongful death claim. Am I understanding you correctly?
You keep using the term "murder" without qualification.

It's not a "loophole" if there is no "harmed party" with the legal standing to file a case.

For example, when an american border guard shot a mexican citizen to death across the border, a case that was reviewed by THE SUPREME COURT no less, it was ruled "not a crime" because nobody in the united states has legal standing to file a case against the border guard.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What a person does with their own property is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY.
You're conflating "moral" and "legal".

Pick one.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you "support" the idea of FREE-MARKETS ?
In a sense yes, but I am not a libertarian. For example, I don't see prostitution as a legitimate "business." The government has certain roles in protecting it's citizens, but there will always be tension between a government's authority and it's citizens' freedom.
Isn't the entire function of government to PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS ?
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
My analysis was in response to this post from you:
You can't "murder" a tumor.

And even if you could, ONLY AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WOULD HAVE LEGAL STANDING.
The phrase "Even if you could" would be interpreted to say "Even if we assume the unborn baby is a human life..."
We are working off that assumption for the sake of argument. So, for the sake of argument, if we assume the unborn child is a human life, and ending that life under normal circumstances would be considered murder, you are saying that the murder would be acceptable because no one can legally file a wrongful death claim. Is that correct?


The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.

What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
You're conflating "moral" and "legal".

Pick one.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't the entire function of government to PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS ?
Not the "freedom" to murder their children.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
the core disagreement in this debate will always be the question of whether we think of a fetus as a human being or not.
the core disagreement in this debate will always be the question of whether we think of a fetus as a CITIZEN or not.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Isn't the entire function of government to PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS ?
Not the "freedom" to murder their children.
Non-citizen deportation.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The legal guardian of a newborn baby (CITIZEN) has moral and legal obligations which can, in some instances, limit the freedoms said guardian would enjoy if they did not have these obligations. This is why neglect of a child is a legal issue.
(IFF) the unborn have the rights of CITIZENS (THEN) every miscarriage and stillbirth must be investigated as MANSLAUGHTER
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
This is a statement of legal fact.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You can't "murder" a tumor.

And even if you could, ONLY AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WOULD HAVE LEGAL STANDING.
The phrase "Even if you could" would be interpreted to say "Even if we assume the unborn baby is a human life..."
We are working off that assumption for the sake of argument. So, for the sake of argument, if we assume the unborn child is a human life, and ending that life under normal circumstances would be considered murder, you are saying that the murder would be acceptable because no one can legally file a wrongful death claim. Is that correct?
You keep using the term "murder" without qualification.

It's not a "loophole" if there is no "harmed party" with the legal standing to file a case.

For example, when an american border guard shot a mexican citizen to death across the border, a case that was reviewed by THE SUPREME COURT no less, it was ruled "not a crime" because nobody in the united states has legal standing to file a case against the border guard.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Non-citizen deportation.
Please elaborate.

This is a statement of legal fact.
Slavery was also legal at the time. That was the point. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Just because people used to be able to own slaves doesn't make it moral. Just because women can legally murder their children doesn't make it moral.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
For example, when an american border guard shot a mexican citizen to death across the border, a case that was reviewed by THE SUPREME COURT no less, it was ruled "not a crime" because nobody in the united states has legal standing to file a case against the border guard.
I don't know the specifics of the case. But if the killing of that Mexican citizen was unjustified, was it immoral to kill that citizen, even if the border guard was not found guilty in court?