[Suntzu]

By most counts, most Americans are pro-abortion. Should a vocal minority be able to control American policy on religious grounds?

[Victoribus Spolia]

By most counts, most Americans are pro-abortion. Should a vocal minority be able to control American policy on religious grounds?

Hell Yes.

Fuck individual rights.

[Pants-of-dog]

But that would give away my surprise....he he...

Well this does sound dystopian. I suppose if it were that bad than I have no problem with people kidnapping and doing all sorts of things like that because its just a money-minded world of anarchy anyway.

But in the real world, we have a policy of trying to save people via things like life support, even in pretty dire situations.

How this applies is this:

That the fetus is dependent on life-support (the mother) without her consent is irrelevant to the society's goal of keeping people with rights alive (which you conceded that fetuses have rights).

Thus, here is the situation:

1. You have a woman who consents to sex, of which conception is a possible outcome, and conceives when she doesn't want to.

2. We have a government that would force her to carry to term and is , therefore criminally, causing her to be a slave in making her carry her own child, that she conceived during an act she consented to, but nonetheless did not want.

3. We have a fetus that is alive, has rights, did not consent to being conceived in the first place, is not responsible for causing slavery, and is on life-support.

4. We have our society (in the real world) which promotes keeping people on life-support alive.

and....

5. We have your moral solution, given 1-4, which is to kill the fetus via an illegal abortion.

Your justification for this, is that the fetus is an unfortunate victim of circumstance (as your scenario argues).

This being the case, would you then say that it is both morally requisite and essential for a society to learn how to, and implement a policy to transplant a fetus safely into willing women who would volunteer (as life-supporters)?

That is, if a fetus is merely an unfortunate victim of circumstance being that it is merely "unwanted," would not it be morally superior for the government to subsidize such transplanting into volunteer mothers, according to your own position? Thereby making abortion illegal and freeing the women in the process?

If not why?

If you are removing the fetus from a woman, it is an abortion regardless if it is then transplanted into another woman or an artificial womb. So how could it be illegal and at the same time government policy?

To be clear, your point number four is very questionable. I have no idea what “our” society is. I am in Canada, where women can get a government subsidised abortion at any stage during pregnancy. And we also have legal euthanasia. I have no idea if the US does that, which is where you presumably live. Plus you guys also have thousands of people who die each year because they cannot afford medical treatment. It does not seem as if either of our societies is super interested in keeping people on life support alive.

Mind you, I have no problem with keeping the fetus alive after it has been removed from the non-consenting woman’s body, as long as the fetus is then placed in a consenting woman or artificial womb.

[Suntzu]

We have been removing embryos from cows for years and transferring them to other cows. I wonder how long it will be before these pro-life (anti-abortion) women step up and save these "babies". There has been talk of implanting embryo into the abdominal cavity of men. The placenta will attach to the abdominal wall. Baby will be delivered caesarian. I betcha the Pope will be first in line for this one.

[Hindsite]

If you are removing the fetus from a woman, it is an abortion regardless if it is then transplanted into another woman or an artificial womb.

Definition of abortion

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion

The dictionary definition of an abortion also requires the death of the baby (embryo or fetus).

[B0ycey]

Hell Yes.

Fuck individual rights.

Um. Interesting statement in a thread about fetus rights. So whose rights are we fucking off again?

[snapdragon]

We have been removing embryos from cows for years and transferring them to other cows.

Not really. It's not really a matter of aborting an established embryo out of one cow and shoving it in some random cow pulled in off the field. It's on the same lines as IVF.

I wonder how long it will be before these pro-life (anti-abortion) women step up and save these "babies". There has been talk of implanting embryo into the abdominal cavity of men. The placenta will attach to the abdominal wall. Baby will be delivered caesarian. I betcha the Pope will be first in line for this one.

Well, once again, that's on the same lines as IVF.

Not only that, over a million abortions a year are carried out in the USA alone.

Where these nutjobs are going to find even ten woman to agree to carry an unwanted embryo to term is anyone's guess; especially considering the uncomfortable and potentially dangerous amount of preparation that would be needed to prevent rejection, before it can be even thought about.

It would cost billions of dollars that would be better spent elsewhere. It's not gonna happen.

You may as well discuss the hypothetical scenario of giving these unwanted embryos to pink unicorns to incubate.

[Suntzu]

My point exactly, folks want to control other folks bodies as long as it doesn't inconvenience them in the least. If it was possible to transfer embryos there would be few/no taker. It also amuses me that it seem it is mostly men who write abortion laws and have their panties in a wad. I wonder how it would go if only women could vote on abortion issues.

[Hindsite]

My point exactly, folks want to control other folks bodies as long as it doesn't inconvenience them in the least. If it was possible to transfer embryos there would be few/no taker. It also amuses me that it seem it is mostly men who write abortion laws and have their panties in a wad. I wonder how it would go if only women could vote on abortion issues.

I believe most women do not want abortions, but they are forced into it because the men will not step up to their responsibilities. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is convicted of two murders. So this proves that the unborn baby has the right to life just like the mother, otherwise the criminal would be convicted of only the murder of the pregnant women.

[Truth To Power]

That the fetus is dependent on life-support (the mother) without her consent is irrelevant to the society's goal of keeping people with rights alive (which you conceded that fetuses have rights).

It's not a question of dependence on life support but of being a separate person from the mother. A pre-viable fetus does not have rights because it is not a separate person. Until it can LIVE SEPARATELY from the woman, it is not a SEPARATE LIFE, and therefore does not have separate rights. Once you understand that, everything else is obvious.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It's not a question of dependence on life support but of being a separate person from the mother. A pre-viable fetus does not have rights because it is not a separate person. Until it can LIVE SEPARATELY from the woman, it is not a SEPARATE LIFE, and therefore does not have separate rights. Once you understand that, everything else is obvious.

I am working in the context of PoD's definitions, not mine.

Don't open your mouth unless you know what the fuck you are talking about after reading the context of the conversation,

once you understand that, everything else is obvious.

[Suntzu]

Wow! Never realized PoD had the power to set the rules. How 'bout we define personhood as a sentient being. Frogs are alive, they have beating hearts, they feel pain, they even think on some level but they ain't sentient beings. Folks can be damaged, brain dead, heart works, lungs work but they are dead. Why can we have a common threshold for human life. If you withdraw unnatural external support, ventilation, forced feeding, etc.,they will die.

[Hindsite]

Wow! Never realized PoD had the power to set the rules. How 'bout we define personhood as a sentient being. Frogs are alive, they have beating hearts, they feel pain, they even think on some level but they ain't sentient beings. Folks can be damaged, brain dead, heart works, lungs work but they are dead. Why can we have a common threshold for human life. If you withdraw unnatural external support, ventilation, forced feeding, etc.,they will die.

Trees are considered sentient beings by some. I consider an unborn baby a sentient being. Is that good enough?

[Suntzu]

Was it Mark Twain who said, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?"

[snapdragon]

Wow! Never realized PoD had the power to set the rules. How 'bout we define personhood as a sentient being.

PoD doesn't. he's just telling you what happens to the the case.

Too difficult. People can be moved from one place to another and can be seen and examined.
They do not occupy the body of another person. That is simple.

Sentience is too vague a term.

Frogs are alive, they have beating hearts, they feel pain, they even think on some level but they ain't sentient beings.

Why aren't they?

Folks can be damaged, brain dead, heart works, lungs work but they are dead. Why can we have a common threshold for human life. If you withdraw unnatural external support, ventilation, forced feeding, etc.,they will die.

True, but what they don't need is to be attached to the inside of another person to survive.

[Suntzu]

Abortion ain't going away. Most folks will agree that aborting a 9 month fetus is wrong. Considering a single cell or a blob of undifferentiated cell a persons is also stupid. Reasonable lies somewhere in between. The SCOTUS said 24 weeks. With modern (very expensive) medical care we can save a fetus delivered at 24 week. There have been a few saved at 20 weeks but they usually end up blind and retar . . . autistic. Most states no use the 20 week limit. The vast majority of abortions are done far earlier. I think most 1st trimester abortions are done with drugs.

On a constitutional level this really should be a state matter since their is no mention of abortion in the constitution or even healthcare, for that matter. See Ammendment 10.

[Truth To Power]

I am working in the context of PoD's definitions, not mine.

Yes, my point was that PoD's concession that fetuses have rights makes your argument for you. I don't accept PoD's definition, whatever it was (the only credible definitions I saw in the thread were from Hindsite). My post was in response to yours, not his. If one does not use PoD's definition or make that concession, you have to either establish that fetuses have rights without relying on PoD's definition, which I doubt you can do, or make some other argument.

Don't open your mouth unless you know what the fuck you are talking about after reading the context of the conversation,

Sorry, I do not believe I have to read 16 pages of mostly invalid reasoning to contribute some sound reasoning. Consequently, I will continue to post as I please, and your injunction will therefore be treated with the bemusement it deserves.

once you understand that, everything else is obvious.

It's obvious you don't want to address any opposing arguments better reasoned and informed than PoD's.

How 'bout we define personhood as a sentient being.

That sets the bar way too low. A lot of people seem to use "sentient" when they mean "sapient."

[Victoribus Spolia]

It's obvious you don't want to address any opposing arguments better reasoned and informed than PoD's.

The only argument i use against abortion, is the one i also use against contraception, which is in the OP.

We can go there if you'd like.

[Suntzu]

"That sets the bar way too low. A lot of people seem to use "sentient" when they mean "sapient.""

I didn't.

[Hindsite]

The only argument i use against abortion, is the one i also use against contraception, which is in the OP.

We can go there if you'd like.

But that is a stupid argument that no one here agrees with.

"That sets the bar way too low. A lot of people seem to use "sentient" when they mean "sapient.""

I didn't.

Well, after all the unborn baby in the womb is alive and is also a human.