Sharing her body - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15164448
@wat0n

This is what I like about the violinist argument or the SCC decision: it is just as strong even if we assume that the fetus is a complete person with all the rights that any other citizen has.
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15164462
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is what I like about the violinist argument or the SCC decision: it is just as strong even if we assume that the fetus is a complete person with all the rights that any other citizen has.

Um... You do realize the argument in the opening post seeks to rebut that argument?
By late
#15164465
Image

“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.”
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
#15164476
Puffer Fish wrote:Um... You do realize the argument in the opening post seeks to rebut that argument?


The argument in the OP presents the case of conjoined twins who share a uterus.

In this case, one of the twins would need to seek the consent of the other to get an abortion.

How does this apply to the violinist argument or the decision by the SCC?
User avatar
By weaver2
#15169179
Discussions about abortion focus on the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother. They are simply mental exercises since the Constitution, the law, the SC, the Bible, nature and science have all established the ascendancy of the woman over the fetus.

What never gets discussed is what women actually base their decision upon, the rights and needs of the family. Family can be as small as only the mother and father or it can be an extended one, but it's all family and every woman considers the family's need for security, stability, time, energy and love in deciding whether to abort or not.

Any abortion discussion that leaves out the effect of a child or another child on the welfare of the family has abandoned morality, ethics, common sense and is irrelevant.
By late
#15170316
weaver2 wrote:
Discussions about abortion focus on the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother. They are simply mental exercises since the Constitution, the law, the SC, the Bible, nature and science have all established the ascendancy of the woman over the fetus.

What never gets discussed is what women actually base their decision upon, the rights and needs of the family. Family can be as small as only the mother and father or it can be an extended one, but it's all family and every woman considers the family's need for security, stability, time, energy and love in deciding whether to abort or not.

Any abortion discussion that leaves out the effect of a child or another child on the welfare of the family has abandoned morality, ethics, common sense and is irrelevant.



You left out sanity.
By snapdragon
#15170855
I'm not going to respond to the OP because it's such a silly question, that I don't feel it's worth giving it the time or effort.

Anna's argument starts off by claiming that she believes that a foetus is a person in its own right.

Which is fine. She can believe what she likes, but any attempt to claim tax relief or other financial benefits off the government for it will soon put her right.

She then goes on to claim foetal personhood as a definite fact, which is not fine.

So her entire argument goes completely out of the window, but even if it didn't, it doesn't add anything to the abortion argument.

It's very common for pro lifers to mistakenly confuse social dependency with physical dependency.

Other members have already pointed that out to her, so there's no need for me to belabour the point.

However, I will add, that when my first pregnancy ended in a miscarriage whereby the embryo I was carrying got flushed away down the loo, there was no investigation of any kind, as there would have been had my newborn disappeared.

The hospital staff asked if I'd saved any clots, but were unconcerned when I hadn't.

Because my newborn baby was a person and therefore had a right not to be killed.

My embryo wasn't.

There was no birth or death certificate. Nothing. As a person it didn't exist.

My feelings at the time were mainly of disappointment. It was a wanted pregnancy, but I was philosophical. Something went wrong and that was that. It's very common. Try again.
Balkan and Elections

A Serbian friend of mine got a free week end trip […]

Thank you for the support. Some of the BLM prote[…]

A New Study Shows Us the Single Biggest Motivati[…]

Of course it is. Or if its not, it should be. Wh[…]