[Godstud]

I am pro-choice, as in it's the right of the woman who is pregnant, to choose, It's no one else's decision! Sorry. That's just the way it is, no matter how unfair that might be to the potential father.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why do you bring up rape?

Because you asked how consent was related to conception and pregnancy.

Do you feel that embryos and fetuses are raping their mothers?

No. The issue of consent to use the woman's body is similar in both circumstances: in both cases, the woman is the one who gets to decide who is inside her.

Do men have the right to abort fetuses as women do? Can a Canadian man force a woman he's had sex with to abort any fetuses that develop from his sperm? Can Canadian women force men to breastfeed their children? They deserve the same rights according to you.

According to me, it all depends on whose body is being used. Since the father does not use his body for any of this, he will not have the same rights, nor need those same rights legally recognised.

Could I invite you on a helicopter ride and kick you out halfway through? Or would that be considered murder?

What does this have to do with your point about needing a contract to establish consent?

The anti-abortion argument is that fetuses have a right to life but you don't even acknowledge the fetuses' existence in your response to me.

I acknowledge the fetus exists and has the same right to life as anyone else.

[AFAIK]

I don't understand what consent has to do with pregnancy in regards to the embryo or fetus. Biology doesn't work that way and neither do many social interactions.

I brought up the helicopter because the life threatening consequences of eviction closely resemble the consequences of abortion. I don't think contracts or consent should be considerations when making decisions about fetuses but since you introduced consent as a justification for abortion I pointed out that it doesn't apply to fetuses.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't understand what consent has to do with pregnancy in regards to the embryo or fetus. Biology doesn't work that way and neither do many social interactions.

The relationship between the fetus and the mother is thus: the fetus is inside the woman, using her body as a life support system. If we assume that the woman has the right to decide what happens with her own body, then we must logically assume that the fetus can only use her body as a life support system with her consent.

As you can see, it depends on the idea that the woman has the right to control what her body is used for. It is not about biology or other social interactions, except as those interactions deal with a person's right to control their own body.

I brought up the helicopter because the life threatening consequences of eviction closely resemble the consequences of abortion. I don't think contracts or consent should be considerations when making decisions about fetuses but since you introduced consent as a justification for abortion I pointed out that it doesn't apply to fetuses.

As long as we are clear that contracts are not a necessary condition for consent.

Now, let us look at your helicopter analogy. Like my dinner analogy, it fails in one important regard: it completely dismisses the concept of the integrity of the body and turns it into a discusssion about trespassing. I do not think trespassing and abortion are comparable, much the same way that I do not think rape and trespassing are comparable.

Having said that, it is obvious that consenting to have you in my helicopter, and then taking away that consent and forcing you out at a high altitude would normally be considered murder. In fact, it would take some very extenuating circumstances to keep me out of jail, such as self-defense or you had ebola and were about to infect the other people on the helicopter or some other unlikely scenario.

Now, in Canada, a woman can get an abortion at any time. If we go back to the helicopter analogy, this would be the equivalent of letting me push you out at 10 000 feet. This seems illogical. It would only makes sense if we assume that every instance of late term abortion is equivalent to one of the unlikely scenarios that would exonerate me as a hypothetical helicopter killer.

This is because the judges who came to this decision assumed that any woman who was getting an abortion would either get an abortion when the fetus was just a bunch of cells, or if was later in the pregnancy, they would only get an abortion if there was a danger to the mother. Experience has shown this to be a valid assumption.

[AFAIK]

If a Canadian were anorexic, bulimic, chopping off body parts or performing some other act of self harm or bodily mutilation would the authorities respect those actions or would they intervene in the belief that preventing such behaviours was in the best interests of the person whose consent they are violating?

[Rei Murasame]

The right to life does not exist unless those who have power say it does. The end.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

No not the end, if that's the way it works then the people in power must be made to change their minds.

The relationship between the fetus and the mother is thus: the fetus is inside the woman, using her body as a life support system. If we assume that the woman has the right to decide what happens with her own body, then we must logically assume that the fetus can only use her body as a life support system with her consent.

Well if the foetus is a living human then the abortionist should have no right to harm the foetus whether the woman wants it in her or not. So the woman may have the right to do what she wants to her body but the abortionist has no right to harm the foetus's body. I oppose circumcision for similar reasons.

[ComradeTim]

I am pro-choice, as in it's the right of the woman who is pregnant, to choose, It's no one else's decision! Sorry. That's just the way it is, no matter how unfair that might be to the potential father.

Not in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria etc it's not. But course, when the West does something that way is 'just the way it is'.

You need better arguments.

[Pants-of-dog]

If a Canadian were anorexic, bulimic, chopping off body parts or performing some other act of self harm or bodily mutilation would the authorities respect those actions or would they intervene in the belief that preventing such behaviours was in the best interests of the person whose consent they are violating?

I have no idea.

--------------

Well if the foetus is a living human then the abortionist should have no right to harm the foetus whether the woman wants it in her or not. So the woman may have the right to do what she wants to her body but the abortionist has no right to harm the foetus's body. I oppose circumcision for similar reasons.

The abortionist (this is not a word) is a licensed medical professional administering a treatment. You are trying to make it seem like the medical professional is an accessory to a crime.

[layman]

Pod, do you believe the women has the right to abort a baby that is viable using a process that would kill it. That is, being in a situation where a different procedure could rescue it healthily without any more risk to the mother.

I understand this Scenario is rare and strange but should it be allowed in principle.

In other words, is there any stage - before birth - where the foetus gains more rights than at conception.

[Rei Murasame]

No not the end, if that's the way it works then the people in power must be made to change their minds.

Which is why I guess you and your band of clerics are there, to act like Jafar from the movie Aladdin and wriggle your snake tongues into the ears of national leaders.

Oh wait, who am I kidding, all across the third world the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is already quite happy to restrict abortion because it makes it easier to manage the cattle, and because a class which cannot control its own birth rate effectively, has no control over one of the most fundamental aspects of its destiny.

Your role would be to convince the cattle that all of this is about 'morality' (read: nonsense) rather than cynical cattle management. So your snake tongue would be in the ears of the mass of the people, not the ears of the kleptocrats at the top.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pod, do you believe the women has the right to abort a baby that is viable using a process that would kill it. That is, being in a situation where a different procedure could rescue it healthily without any more risk to the mother.

I understand this Scenario is rare and strange but should it be allowed in principle.

In other words, is there any stage - before birth - where the foetus gains more rights than at conception.

I believe that every person has the rght to do what they want with their body, including the fetus. I also believe in single payer public health care such as we have in Canada. Therefore, if we could separate a fetus from the mother without killing it, I would support using taxpayer dollars to keep it alive.

[Godstud]

Not in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria etc it's not.

I don't give a fuck about those shithole countries, where they probably view women as property.

But course, when the West does something that way is 'just the way it is'.

What has that got to do with what I think? The West IS more progressive, and tends to be, in general, a better place to live, with more freedoms and rights. Go move to Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, if that's what you want! Enjoy! (Somehow, I doubt you will)

You need better arguments.

No, I do not need a better argument, since I wasn't making an argument. That was my OPINION.

I agree with what Canada does, regarding abortion. My argument is that it protects the rights of the woman, which comes above that of a fetus that tends to grow inside of her(100% of the time).

A fetus is not a human being. When a fetus becomes a baby, and there is a birth, it becomes a human being. Not before. That's also my opinion.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I don't give a fuck about those shithole countries, where they probably view women as property.

You mean like they do in Thailand, a major hub for international sex slavery.

[Godstud]

If that's what you think, then you obviously know nothing about Thailand( like I've NEVER encountered people like THAT before). As usual, someone who reads vapid blogs tries to weigh in on something they know nothing about.

a major hub for international sex slavery.

Which has to do with criminals, not normal citizens. Please stop with the evasions.

Women are not property or any such idiocy, in Thailand. Asian women are not "passive" or other such ridiculous nonsense you might have read somewhere. In short, pretending that women are treated the same as in other places, like the Arab nations, is just totally false. It's a nice LIE you can tell yourself, however, if that's what you want to believe.

Feminism is alive and well in Thailand. Thailand recently had a female PM, you know? Compare that to Saudi Arabia or Nigeria...

USA and many other countries(including yours, Jessup) have BIGGER problems. Shall I start listing them? Does that have anything to do with the topic of abortion?

[snapdragon]

Pod, do you believe the women has the right to abort a baby that is viable using a process that would kill it. That is, being in a situation where a different procedure could rescue it healthily without any more risk to the mother.

I'm going to reply to this bit. If this procedure was carried out with permission of the pregnant woman (who is not a mother), then why not? In fact, this procedure already exists. It's called delivery.

And to this bit

In other words, is there any stage - before birth - where the foetus gains more rights than at conception.

No.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Then why is the cut off stage in many nations around the 21 week period?

As for the first point, would you agree to a policy of delivering the baby before labour where possible as an alternative to abortion if the mother didn't agree to it and wanted the baby as well as the pregnancy terminated?

[snapdragon]

Then why is the cut off stage in many nations around the 21 week period?

It isn't a cut off point as such. Most nations have a point after which an abortion cannot take place unless there's a good reason for doing it. This is nothing to do with any rights a foetus may have, but more to do with ethics.

I don't see the point, myself.

As for the first point, would you agree to a policy of delivering the baby before labour where possible as an alternative to abortion if the mother didn't agree to it and wanted the baby as well as the pregnancy terminated?

No. It's already hard enough trying to keep wanted babies born prematurely alive. Not only is it extremely expensive, there are a shortage of specialist medical staff able to care for them.

edit: What happened to the baby born at 24 weeks is not unusual, even for wanted babies.

Keeping such a young baby alive would involve a lot of intensive, invasive medical intervention for no good reason. It lived for one hour only, so its chances were very poor.