Abortion - Responsibility and Rights

Author: TheMorningsStar

Posts

Total: 94
Topic's author
#31
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not sure I agree with your argument
Do you think there is no correlation? Can one without rights ever be justly held responsible for what they do?

who would that responsibility be to?
Other people and/or society, yes.

 If so, in the context of pregnancy, aren't you assuming personhood of the unborn without actually making that argument?
Can you describe personhood for me?

Ok. Let us imagine the same scenario, except my injuries were due to something you did. I still do not have a right to use your body.
That, itself, would be its own debate. How responsible am I and in what way?

I feel like responsibility isn't binary. It isn't that you are responsible or not, and we can look at children for this. The older the child the more they end up having responsibility.
A very young child that does something horribly wrong is usually seen as the fault of the parent, thus the parent can be punished while the child might be taken away and put in a new home where their new guardian will take their responsibility seriously. This is because the dynamics on how much of the responsibility falls onto the child.
Let's then take a preteen, they could end up going through the juvenile justice system if what they did is horribly wrong as they are held to a greater level of responsibility but not so much so that they go to jail or prison.
An older teen can sometimes be tried as an adult based on the level of responsibility and thus could face jail or prison.
Once one becomes an adult they will face jail or prison when doing these things.

We also see rights being granted with more age. Young children have less rights than young teens, which are given some level of rights, and young teens have less rights than adults.

We also see the inverse when it comes to actions against parent.
When the child is young enough the parent might face consequences on some level but as the child ages the amount of consequences the parent faces lessens.
Parents also, as a result, have more freedom as their child has more rights. The same thing that counts as neglect when their child is 1 year old doesn't count as such when their child is 5. What counts as neglect when their child is 5 doesn't count when the child is 10. So on and so forth.

As the child ages they have more responsibilities and more rights while the parent has less responsibilities. If a parent naturally has higher levels of responsibilities when the child is younger then it could be argued that this also can apply to pre-birth, with even greater levels of responsibilities and thus greater restrictions on freedom.

How responsible are you for the life of someone you injured in comparison to how responsible a parent is for their child? Or their unborn child?

This demonstrates someone's responsibility for our predicament does not mean we have a right to use their body.
If a mother has a baby and they are in a situation where the only way to feed said baby is direct breastfeeding or the baby will starve then the law would say that refusing to feed their baby is neglect (assuming the mother is physically capable of breastfeeding the baby). Is this not already, on some level, a violation of bodily autonomy? Is not the unborn in a similar situation?

Also, I know it wasn't addressed to you, but have you seen post #9? I would like your input on what I said to Double_R.
#32
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
 If so, in the context of pregnancy, aren't you assuming personhood of the unborn without actually making that argument?
Can you describe personhood for me?
You're answering a question with a question, buddy.

Ok. Let us imagine the same scenario, except my injuries were due to something you did. I still do not have a right to use your body.
That, itself, would be its own debate. How responsible am I and in what way?
Let's go with a worst case scenario- you intended to harm me and you alone are completely responsible for my life threatening Injuries. Even under these circumstances, I have no right to your body.

This responsibility argument might seem reasonable until we consider that there is no circumstance where one person has a right to use the body of another. 

As for the rest (binary responsibility)... It seems you are trying to establish an equivalence between the rights of the born and rights of the unborn. I see this as a false equivalence. However, even if we assume full rights to the unborn there is no circumstance where responsibility allows my body to be used without my consent. Personhood doesn't change this fact, so it simply isn't relevant to this discussion. 

If a mother has a baby and they are in a situation where the only way to feed said baby is direct breastfeeding or the baby will starve then the law would say that refusing to feed their baby is neglect (assuming the mother is physically capable of breastfeeding the baby). Is this not already, on some level, a violation of bodily autonomy? Is not the unborn in a similar situation?
I actually don't know this to be true - I'm not sure the law requires breastfeeding in a survival situation (it would have to be something extreme for this scenario to be feasible.) Also, I know of no mother than would choose not to feed their baby if they were able. I don't know that this hypothetical is closely connected to reality.

Also, I know it wasn't addressed to you, but have you seen post #9? I would like your input on what I said to Double_R.
You have my condolences. What specifically would you like me to comment on? 
Topic's author
#33
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
You're answering a question with a question, buddy.
But in order to answer it I would need to know what you mean by person. I don't wish to end up in a situation where we talk past one another and waste each other's time, and as such I will assume that if you answer a question with a question that there is real meaning in doing so. I hope you do the same.

If by 'person' you mean 'human with rights' then I think one could theoretically argue that the unborn does not necessarily need to be a person to have rights as the country acknowledges, for example, animal rights. However, understanding what is meant by person and what makes one a person would make addressing any questions around personhood easier.

 It seems you are trying to establish an equivalence between the rights of the born and rights of the unborn. I see this as a false equivalence.
Moreso I am trying to show the relationship between responsibility of the parent and how it can impact said parent's rights with the age and development of the child. If we can acknowledge this then a question must be raised to if such a thing can extend to the child when it is unborn, being at a more undeveloped state leading to an increase in responsibility and thus more limitation on rights. Furthermore, if we accept the breastfeeding example then the responsibility over a newborn can already limit bodily autonomy given the circumstances, and as such bodily autonomy alone would not be, imo, a sufficient reason to reject the responsibility a mother has over the unborn.

I actually don't know this to be true - I'm not sure the law requires breastfeeding in a survival situation (it would have to be something extreme for this scenario to be feasible.)
If what I have read is to be understood it is a case where it is considered neglect, as the mother had the option to feed the baby and responsibility to and chose not to. It could be the case that what I have read and watched when it comes to the topic is wrong though.

Also, I know of no mother than would choose not to feed their baby if they were able. I don't know that this hypothetical is closely connected to reality.
Whether they would choose to or not is not really relevant though, the question is if they are legally obligated to. If they are then we know that bodily autonomy is already sacrificed on some level when it comes to a parent's responsibility for their newborn.

 What specifically would you like me to comment on? 
Not sure if the point was clear in said post, but this part:
"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 any 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?"

Of course, we could replace 1st trimester with the however long you think abortion is permissible.

If the unborn do not have rights at a certain point in development then is there any reason why a sadistic woman cannot choose (not through addiction but through malice) to get pregnant and do as many hard drugs as possible up to the point the child gains rights? If this is not permissible then you must be giving the unborn some level of rights, otherwise this must be permissible.
#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
So would you then agree that the unborn do have rights, just not so much so that abortion becomes unjustified?
Yes, I would grant the unborn rights. Someone who for example stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach should, in addition to whatever charges are filed for the harm caused to the mother, be charged for murder.

I just do not believe the unborn’s rights supcede that of the mother’s rights due to the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother’s body.
#35
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If by 'person' you mean 'human with rights' then I think one could theoretically argue that the unborn does not necessarily need to be a person to have rights as the country acknowledges, for example, animal rights. However, understanding what is meant by person and what makes one a person would make addressing any questions around personhood easier.
By "person", I typically mean a human with the capacity for consciousness which has rights - generally someone who has been born.

Moreso I am trying to show the relationship between responsibility of the parent and how it can impact said parent's rights with the age and development of the child. If we can acknowledge this then a question must be raised to if such a thing can extend to the child when it is unborn, being at a more undeveloped state leading to an increase in responsibility and thus more limitation on rights.

If anything, being more developed leads to an increase in responsibility until birth and then it starts to go the other way as children become adults and (hopefully) more independent. 

If the unborn do not have rights at a certain point in development then is there any reason why a sadistic woman cannot choose (not through addiction but through malice) to get pregnant and do as many hard drugs as possible up to the point the child gains rights? If this is not permissible then you must be giving the unborn some level of rights, otherwise this must be permissible.
There is no reason why a sadistic woman can't get pregnant and do drugs. There is also no reason why a sadistic man can't do drugs and get a woman pregnant (sperm can be affected by toxic substances and cause permanent birth defects too). Even if I did believe in unborn rights (which I dont), I certainly wouldn't think they exist before conception. 

I understand where you are coming from, but our limitations have limits - whether that be because the limits are unenforceable, redundant, overstepping, etc.  Some things are simply beyond our control.
Topic's author
#36
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Yes, I would grant the unborn rights. Someone who for example stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach should, in addition to whatever charges are filed for the harm caused to the mother, be charged for murder.
Great, some common ground. It is always pleasant to find areas of agreement.

I just do not believe the unborn’s rights supcede that of the mother’s rights due to the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother’s body.
Alright, considering you have not disputed that a parent's rights can be limited when they are a legal guardian (neglect laws) then is it the issue of bodily autonomy itself?

If so, I am curious of your thoughts about what I brought up to SkpeticalOne.
"If a mother has a baby and they are in a situation where the only way to feed said baby is direct breastfeeding or the baby will starve then the law would say that refusing to feed their baby is neglect (assuming the mother is physically capable of breastfeeding the baby). Is this not already, on some level, a violation of bodily autonomy? Is not the unborn in a similar situation?"

Keep in mind that the younger/less developed the born child is the more responsibilities lie on the legal guardian (what counts as neglect at 1 year old isn't neglect at 5, what counts as neglect ag 5 years old doesn't count as neglect at 10, etc.), and thus the more limited the freedom of the parent. What prevents us from using this logic with the unborn as well? The responsibility of a newborn already can, in some circumstances, 'violate' bodily autonomy, so why can't the unborn do the same?
Topic's author
#37
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
By "person", I typically mean a human with the capacity for consciousness which has rights
What is it, in your view, that 'grants' rights and when does it happen?

If anything, being more developed leads to an increase in responsibility until birth and then it starts to go the other way as children become adults and (hopefully) more independent. 
Why would that be the case when it is typically actions one takes during the 1st trimester that has the greatest impact on the development of a child?

I understand where you are coming from, but our limitations have limits - whether that be because the limits are unenforceable, redundant, overstepping, etc.  Some things are simply beyond our control.
I agree some things are beyond our control, which is why I do not argue that those doing hard drugs before conception are responsible (as even women doing certain hard drugs before conception can still cause issues), but I disagree that it is overstepping or beyond control to make abortion illegal.
#38
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7

What is it, in your view, that 'grants' rights and when does it happen?
Rights are attached to birth and come from humanity.

If anything, being more developed leads to an increase in responsibility until birth and then it starts to go the other way as children become adults and (hopefully) more independent. 
Why would that be the case when it is typically actions one takes during the 1st trimester that has the greatest impact on the development of a child?
That's just how it is. Development leads to the characteristics we recognize as uniquely human, and it is at this point rights are attached - not before.

Think about what you're advocating for - at the moment of conception, development is at the lowest possible level which, by your reasoning, means responsibility is at the greatest and parent rights subverted the most.

If it is not clear, I don't accept responsibility allows rights to be subverted.

I disagree that it is overstepping or beyond control to make abortion illegal.

Then we definitely disagree. If human rights include health, equality, privacy (which they do) then abortion should be a right by extension. 
Topic's author
#39
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Rights are attached to birth and come from humanity.
Seems we might have a fundamental difference about rights. I believe rights are natural to all things. Human rights are natural to humans at any stage of development, animal rights are natural to animals, etc. That doesn't mean that we respect all rights equally, as humans we prioritize human rights over animal rights but that does not mean animal rights cease to exist.

If it is not clear, I don't accept responsibility allows rights to be subverted.
How do you justify neglect laws if responsibility cannot subvert rights?

Think about what you're advocating for - at the moment of conception, development is at the lowest possible level which, by your reasoning, means responsibility is at the greatest and parent rights subverted the most.
Yes, as the child is least developed and is most impacted by the choices of the parents. Just as when a child develops from birth to adulthood the legal guardian has less responsibility as they develop so to would this apply pre-birth. As the unborn at the 3rd trimester is less developed the responsibility over the child is greater, the 2nd trimester is even less developed and so the responsibility is greater still, and so on with the 1st trimester.
#40
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I believe rights are natural to all things.
To be honest, I've never understood this notion. In the absence of rational minds there are no concepts, much less a concept such as rights. As such, human rights are contigent upon rational (human) minds.

How do you justify neglect laws if responsibility cannot subvert rights?

There is no right to neglect another person (a born individual with rights), therefore neglect laws are not subverting rights. 

And to get ahead of the inevitable response - there is nothing in neglect laws which requires breastfeeding or infringes upon bodily autonomy.
#41
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I’m going to ask questions from several angles.

  • When would you give it rights? At moment of conception? Heartbeat (which is pretty ambiguous)?

  • Which of these situations would you include in forcing pregnancy to term: Risk to mothers life? Doctors warning of fetus having a disability? Rape and/or Incest?

  • When it comes to women being responsible for getting pregnant, what do you mean exactly? For having sex? Accidents do accrue when it comes to protection. And the reproductive system is completely autonomic. 

  • Should men be held equally responsible; as in torture them too?

  • Would you surveil?

Topic's author
#42
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
  • When would you give it rights? At moment of conception? Heartbeat (which is pretty ambiguous)?
The moment it is a developing human, which would likely be the moment of conception.

  • Which of these situations would you include in forcing pregnancy to term: Risk to mothers life? Doctors warning of fetus having a disability? Rape and/or Incest?
Risk to mother's life would be permissible. As I have stated in comments, cases of rape mean the mother has no responsibility as it was forced. Incest is a trickery question as power dynamics must be put into consideration (which could make it sexual assault). Disabilities would not impact it from the current position I am arguing, as a disabled human is just as human as you or me.

When it comes to women being responsible for getting pregnant, what do you mean exactly? For having sex? Accidents do accrue when it comes to protection. And the reproductive system is completely autonomic
Yes, for having sex. It goes to the analogy with the driver and vehicular manslaughter. Just because it is an accident or unintended does not mean there isn't responsibility.

  • Should men be held equally responsible; as in torture them too?
Men should be responsible (hence where child care comes into play, but I think this should start while pregnant to help cover medical costs during pregnancy), but what do you mean torture? Men and women are biologically different, thus the types of responsibilities they hold would be different.

  • Would you surveil?
No, and if a miscarriage happens it is assumed natural unless there is reason given to think otherwise (just as when a newborn dies of SIDS it isn't assumed to be murder). This would mean that people likely could get illegal abortions and get away with it, but there is no such thing as stopping all crime or helping all people, doesn't mean you give up.
Topic's author
#43
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
To be honest, I've never understood this notion. In the absence of rational minds there are no concepts, much less a concept such as rights. As such, human rights are contigent upon rational (human) minds.
This gets into metaphysical debates and could get us quite off topic, but it could actually be more significant to the idea of rights than I thought. Personally, I find such metaphysical questions easier to debate when focused on numbers. Do you think numbers and mathematics are discovered or invented? Do numbers exist independent of the human mind? This is not a topic I am as well versed on, but needless to say I am a mataphysical realist, and I think a necessary extension of this is that concepts (like numbers and mathematics) exist independently of human thought. As such there is no issue with rights also existing independently of rational minds.

There is no right to neglect another person
But how is it determined to be neglect? If I don't feed someone else's child I am not found guilty of neglect but a parent refusing to feed their child is. Unless there is some relation between the neglected and the person that can be found guilty then what exactly is a neglect law doing?

 there is nothing in neglect laws which requires breastfeeding or infringes upon bodily autonomy.
Not directly, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As stated before, if the only way for a mother to feed their starving baby is breastfeeding them and they are perfectly capable of doing so (regardless of how this hypothetical situation occurs) then it is neglect not to breastfeed their baby. If alternative options exist then it just matters that the baby is fed. Do you disagree with this? If so then why?
#44
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Do you think numbers and mathematics are discovered or invented? Do numbers exist independent of the human mind?
Invented. No.

But how is it determined to be neglect?
Neglect doesn't occur with a single event. It is a prolonged occurrence where necessities are not provided for an extended period. But, again, this is a false equivalence. Refusing to participate in the genesis of a new person is not neglect of a person.

We have a person being acted upon (or not acted upon/cared for) in one case, and, depending on your view, 1) a single person making decisions about their bodily property or; 
2) one person refusing to allow their body to be used for the benefit of someone else. These are not analogous any way you look at it. 


there is nothing in neglect laws which requires breastfeeding or infringes upon bodily autonomy.
Not directly, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Not at all. You are assuming the truth of your position without showing it is actually true. 

As stated before, if the only way for a mother to feed their starving baby is breastfeeding them and they are perfectly capable of doing so (regardless of how this hypothetical situation occurs) then it is neglect not to breastfeed their baby.
And, as I stated before, you have set out a survival situation where a child is starving - if the child is starving, then it is likely the mother is too. Neglect isn't going to be a serious consideration in a real world scenario.

I feel like we are talking past one another here, so unless there is something else we should agree to leave this unresolved for now.  We can revisit once we've had time to consider the discussion.
Topic's author
#45
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Invented. No.
So ya, I think in order to discuss rights we might need to discuss metaphysics, but I am not prepared to do so at this time.

 But, again, this is a false equivalence. Refusing to participate in the genesis of a new person is not neglect of a person.
It is only a false equivalence because your definition of person, seems to me, almost begs the question.

I feel like we are talking past one another here, so unless there is something else we should agree to leave this unresolved for now.  We can revisit once we've had time to consider the discussion.
Agreed, agree to disagree for now while we mull over what each other have said.
#46
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
It is only a false equivalence because your definition of person, seems to me, almost begs the question.
Just to be clear, you are challenging the status quo. It is not me begging the question, friend.
#47
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Alright, considering you have not disputed that a parent's rights can be limited when they are a legal guardian (neglect laws) then is it the issue of bodily autonomy itself?
Much like your position, it’s a combination of bodily autonomy and personal responsibility. Like I said a few posts ago, this is why I believe the debate ultimately comes down to whether you believe an early stage fetus is a human being. If you do, then personal responsibility carries much weight even for a two week old fetus. If you don’t, it doesn’t carry much weight at that stage.

If, in a pro choice world the mother allows the fetus to develop for 8 months, I believe she has assumed the responsibility to carry that pregnancy to terms. It’s even more clear cut after the baby is born. Once you have made the decision to bring a fully dependent human being into the world and allowed it to develop to that point, you have to deal with that responsibility.

I do not however believe that a woman accepts that responsibility merely because she decided to have sex, and at two months the fetus does not yet have any of the traits we tend to value in living creatures. So I don’t see any of these arguments applying to early term abortion.
Topic's author
#48
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Double_R
If you don’t, it doesn’t carry much weight at that stage.
But it does carry enough weight to say the mother shouldn't start doing hard drugs during their 1st trimester?

Also, in an earlier comment you said, "Someone who for example stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach should, in addition to whatever charges are filed for the harm caused to the mother, be charged for murder."

Does this apply during the first trimester or only after such a time that the fetus has "traits we tend to value in living creatures"?

If it applies in the 1st trimester, how does it follow that it counts as murder when someone other than the mother takes the life?

I do not however believe that a woman accepts that responsibility merely because she decided to have sex
Why not?

 I don’t see any of these arguments applying to early term abortion.
What are your thoughts on abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester?
#49
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You can list your personal reasons for being pro life.You never have to have an abortion.
You can list your personal reasons for being anti-canibal. The fact is, you will never eat a human being. Why are you enforcing our moral standards on me? The fact is, men can have an opinion on women's rights, just like how white people can be apart of BLM, just like how a mom-murdering judge can have an opinion on murders.
#50
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Mugging involves a victim whose rights have been violated. The unborn don't have rights you cannot violate them.
A fetus is scientifically...
 
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
—Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
 
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
—Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
 
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
—Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8
 
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
— Princeton Education 
 
“Development of human beings with fertilisation a process by which the sperm from the male and the egg from the female unite to give rise to a new organism which is the zygote”
—Dr. T.W Sadler
 
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (1)
-EPM.org

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception” 
-Dr. Michelle M. Mathews-Rohs, from Harvard Medical School, 

“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life”
-Ann Furedi, Chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Centre, the UK’s larger independent abortion provider. 

“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretence that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus”
-Faye Wattleton, longest reigning President of Planned Parenthood

“This (life beginning at conception) all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t a part of the common knowledge”
-Alan Guttmacher, former President of Planned Parenthood, (1933)

a human being. 
#51
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
But it does carry enough weight to say the mother shouldn't start doing hard drugs during their 1st trimester?
Yes. The right to terminate a pregnancy comes from the right a woman has to her own body. The termination is necessary in that case. Torture is not, which is essentially what this would be.

Also, in an earlier comment you said, "Someone who for example stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach should, in addition to whatever charges are filed for the harm caused to the mother, be charged for murder."

Does this apply during the first trimester or only after such a time that the fetus has "traits we tend to value in living creatures"?

If it applies in the 1st trimester, how does it follow that it counts as murder when someone other than the mother takes the life?
Because the mother’s body is required for the fetus to have a pathway to life, so only she gets to make that decision. Once she has, the stabber is taking that pathway away.


I do not however believe that a woman accepts that responsibility merely because she decided to have sex
Why not?
Because sex is a natural need wired into all of us. It’s our nature, so I find it absurd to treat this in and of itself as a punishable act, which is essentially the pro life position. Also, because the chances of getting pregnant are heavily in control of the male, whose body is not subject to the same consequences.

What are your thoughts on abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester?
I’m generally against 3rd trimester and grey on 2nd. I don’t know enough about the development timeline to say exactly where I stand.
Topic's author
#52
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Double_R
The point of that statement and one of the founding principals of this country is that everyone is *treated* equally, meaning that we ensure everyone has an equal, or as close to an equal *opportunity* to succeed as possible...

 Once she has, the stabber is taking that pathway away.
I do apologize if I am misinterpreting, but am I correct in saying that it is then almost solely due to the woman's bodily autonomy that abortion is permissible?

 I find it absurd to treat this in and of itself as a punishable act, which is essentially the pro life position
For me, this is where the analogy in the OP comes into play. Whether something is intended or not is not usually relevant when it comes to the obligations/responsibilities one must take on, what matters is if they made the choice that ended with the unintended consequence.

While sex is natural there are ways with dealing with those urges that have zero chance of resulting in pregnancy.

because the chances of getting pregnant are heavily in control of the male, whose body is not subject to the same consequences.
Is this not just the unfortunate reality of sexual dimorphism? My position is that 'child support' should start the moment pregnancy is determined and the father of the child needs to help with financial costs of any medical tests, procedures, visits, etc. in regards to the pregnancy. Not a perfect solution, as dimorphism tends to always have the issue where someone will find it unfair, but it is a solution.
#53
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
The unborn don't have rights they don't have identification they don't have a birth certificate they don't have anything to verify their even alive because they're not born yet whether you like it or not now quit pulling me back into the conversation when I said I'm done.
#54
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The unborn don't have rights they don't have identification they don't have a birth certificate they don't have anything to verify their even alive
So if I lose my birth certificate and identification, I am allowed to be killed? 

quit pulling me back into the conversation when I said I'm done.
The only reason your done is because you've realised your supporting the wrong side. 
#55
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
My opinion on this issue is the least biased out there.  No source can have less of a personal stake in this question than I.  As such, my opinion is the objectively correct one.  

If you are a woman who happens to have an abortion, it is you who will stand before God on your day of judgment and account for your actions; just as the rest of us will do the same, for ours.  

So I clearly oppose abortion.  But that is my opinion.  What right do I have to force my opinion on others?  None, of course.  And the state would have even less.

The moral stakes of abortion are not for the state to resolve. The extent of the controversy surrounding the abortion debate is itself evidence of the fact that government has no place weighing in on its morality.  Some people viscerally oppose it, while others support it with the same or greater intensity.  The debate rages on, as it has, for the last almost 50 years.  

So what, then, should be the default position?  

Liberty, of course.  The liberty to act according to your own conscience, based on your own values.  
#56
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar

  • When would you give it rights? At moment of conception? Heartbeat (which is pretty ambiguous)?
The moment it is a developing human, which would likely be the moment of conception.
So you would ban morning after pills? Also anything with human DNA is human. Just because it’s developing, doesn’t mean it’s meaningfully conscious.
It would be as conscious as my fingernail, which I trim every now and then. 

When it comes to women being responsible for getting pregnant, what do you mean exactly? For having sex? Accidents do accrue when it comes to protection. And the reproductive system is completely autonomic
Yes, for having sex. It goes to the analogy with the driver and vehicular manslaughter. Just because it is an accident or unintended does not mean there isn't responsibility.
The car’s completely self-driving though. The only thing she did was to hop in the car. Would you still say it’s her responsibility?

  • Should men be held equally responsible; as in torture them too?
Men should be responsible (hence where child care comes into play, but I think this should start while pregnant to help cover medical costs during pregnancy), but what do you mean torture? Men and women are biologically different, thus the types of responsibilities they hold would be different.
You haven’t been around many pregnant women. They still go through pain even if they’re “biologically different.”
And when you’re talking about responsibility, it’s like you’re talking about duty to have children also.

  • Would you surveil?
No, and if a miscarriage happens it is assumed natural unless there is reason given to think otherwise (just as when a newborn dies of SIDS it isn't assumed to be murder). This would mean that people likely could get illegal abortions and get away with it, but there is no such thing as stopping all crime or helping all people, doesn't mean you give up.
To me it seems like you’ll just be fine with delegalising abortion, not criminalising it. Anyway what punishments would there be? What people would you be helping? Would you be actively hurting people by delegalising or criminalising it?
Topic's author
#57
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
So you would ban morning after pills?
Yes, unless I see a good reason otherwise.

Also anything with human DNA is human.
That is absolutely a false statement. I know of no biologist that takes that position that a cell with human DNA = a human.

 doesn’t mean it’s meaningfully conscious.
Is that a necessary qualifier?

The car’s completely self-driving though. The only thing she did was to hop in the car. Would you still say it’s her responsibility?
What is the 'self-driving car' in the analogy and how does it relate to the analogy provided? Are you saying women are incapable of saying no to sex (as that is the only thing that makes sense if you are trying to keep the analogy consistent with one I provided)?

You haven’t been around many pregnant women. 
I have, but I do not classify it as 'torture'. Is it painful at times? Yes, sometimes extremely painful. Is it uncomfortable at times? Yes. But to use the word torture in a question about pregnancy is almost like a loaded question.

 it seems like you’re also talking about duty to have children.
Where do you get that impression from anything I said? Are you actually responding to my arguments or are you assuming that I am arguing the same way as other pro-lifers?

What punishments would there be? What people would you be helping?
Same punishment as neglect (or murder if a harsher punishment is deemed necessary) if one is found guilty, and it is protecting the unborn.
#58
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
Your opinion is wrong, but less wrong, sort of, than the person you're arguing with.
#59
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Your opinion is very wrong.
#60
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
So you would ban morning after pills?
Yes, unless I see a good reason otherwise.
I don’t see any bad reasons for them to stay legalised.
Though you’re arguing to ban them. What’s your reasoning?

Also anything with human DNA is human.
That is absolutely a false statement. I know of no biologist that takes that position that a cell with human DNA = a human.
They would say it’s human. This is common sense stuff. 

 doesn’t mean it’s meaningfully conscious.
Is that a necessary qualifier?
What is you’re argument based on that you’d go as far as to ban the morning after pill and give zygotes rights?

The car’s completely self-driving though. The only thing she did was to hop in the car. Would you still say it’s her responsibility?
What is the 'self-driving car' in the analogy and how does it relate to the analogy provided? Are you saying women are incapable of saying no to sex (as that is the only thing that makes sense if you are trying to keep the analogy consistent with one I provided)?
You ignored what I said about protection sometimes failing and the reproductive system being autonomic.

You haven’t been around many pregnant women. 
I have, but I do not classify it as 'torture'. Is it painful at times? Yes, sometimes extremely painful. Is it uncomfortable at times? Yes. But to use the word torture in a question about pregnancy is almost like a loaded question.
You’ll be forcing women through that experience. 

 it seems like you’re also talking about duty to have children.
Where do you get that impression from anything I said? Are you actually responding to my arguments or are you assuming that I am arguing the same way as other pro-lifers?
Well you are arguing for zygotes to have rights. It’s only natural you’re arguing that it’s a woman’s duty to have children. 

What punishments would there be? What people would you be helping?
Same punishment as neglect (or murder if a harsher punishment is deemed necessary) if one is found guilty, and it is protecting the unborn.
When you say protecting the unborn, I think of someone talking about protecting my fingernail from being clipped. 
What are you protecting them from exactly? Just being aborted?