Less punishment for killing when it is inside the womb? - 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.
#15119964
An interesting and complex question, this.

Agreement between two people on an answer -- any answer -- is dependent upon agreement on definitions.

The first is when, during the path of its development, a fertilized egg becomes a human being.

Once that is settled, the discussion can proceed on logical grounds, using the toolkit of analytic philosophy.

Absent that, it should not be too difficult to find people shouting at each other without listening to the replies.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
#15119967
While the question of whether or not the fetus is a person (or when does it become a person) is interesting, it is irrelevant for certain pro-choice arguments.

Note that we do not allow born people with full rights and personhood to use the body of another person for life support.
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 15 Sep 2020 17:44, edited 1 time in total.
#15119970
Torus34 wrote:
An interesting and complex question, this.

Agreement between two people on an answer -- any answer -- is dependent upon agreement on definitions.

The first is when, during the path of its development, a fertilized egg becomes a human being.

Once that is settled, the discussion can proceed on logical grounds, using the toolkit of analytic philosophy.

Absent that, it should not be too difficult to find people shouting at each other without listening to the replies.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.



Were you born in the 'Lite FM' section of this discussion board -- ?
#15119973
ckaihatsu wrote:Were you born in the 'Lite FM' section of this discussion board -- ?


Hi!

Thank you for taking an interest in me as a person. Actually, I was born in a hospital on Staten Island, NYC some 86 years ago. Additional information's available by clicking on my nom de internet.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15122267
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you remove the fetus from the body of the pregnant person, you are no longer allowing the pregnant person the right to use their body to keep the child alive.

Nice try, but I would argue the connection between her body and the unborn developing child is not itself inherently part of her body. (at least not in physically)

You're talking about the inherent right of her body to do something, that is entirely related to something apart from her body.
I almost want to use the word "outside" her body, but as we well know, that would not be geometrically accurate here.
But we could imagine the fetus is outside her body and she is sustaining it via an umbilical cord attached to the exterior of her body.

We could compare this to a woman not being allowed to get into an arm wrestling match with one of her friends, because that friend has been taken away, and then her complaining that "infringes on the right to her body". Obviously such a view would be absurd.
#15122268
Godstud, the reason pregnant women don't get the stimulus child payment is because they can still go to work.
The woman doesn't have to really expend any special effort to watch over her baby, and there will not be cries from the baby disrupting the workplace.
(The baby doesn't cry because there is no air inside the uterus)

Maybe it's only in the very latest stages of pregnancy right before delivery that it will substantially interfere with her work.

And there is a little bias here, because it is assumed the woman is working in an office. Women in other more physically demanding (or potentially hazardous) jobs may have a pregnancy that interferes with their work.
#15122269
skinster:
"Just wondering what the pro-life crowd thinks of the forced hysterectomies at the ICE detention centers?"

This was a response to that I read in another forum:
"Are you concerned they may be taking away future revenue away from Planned Parenthood?"

Someone else claimed the reply was disingenuous, but it's actually clever in a way. Since it points out that these women were generally poor, already had many children, and being sterilized would prevent likely abortions from happening in the future. And also points out the inconsistency of being outraged over forced hysterectomies while at the same time caring completely nothing about the many abortions that will happen in the place of those forced hysterectomies not taking place.
#15122270
So nice try, skinster and Godstud, but I think your supposed observations making pro-lifers look like hypocrites have just been debunked.

They only look that way on the surface, but it only takes a little bit of intellectual analysis to see that they are hollow and actually lacking in any logical content.

I can explain that even further in case this is still not obvious to anyone.
#15122275
You know nothing about pregnancies, do you? I suppose you think that women work until their water breaks and they are rushed to the hospital? Your argument shows a vast degree of ignorance both in biology and ethics.

Now I know how to deal with you. Thanks for identifying yourself as a misogynist, @Puffer Fish. :knife:

Pro-lifers ARE the biggest hypocrites and you know it. You are being VERY dishonest in your attempt to argue your point. All I see is someone who is pro-Bullshit.
#15122284
Puffer Fish wrote:Nice try, but I would argue the connection between her body and the unborn developing child is not itself inherently part of her body. (at least not in physically)


How does that change anything?

The pregnant person us still being deprived of choice and their reproductive rights.

You're talking about the inherent right of her body to do something, that is entirely related to something apart from her body.
I almost want to use the word "outside" her body, but as we well know, that would not be geometrically accurate here.
But we could imagine the fetus is outside her body and she is sustaining it via an umbilical cord attached to the exterior of her body.

We could compare this to a woman not being allowed to get into an arm wrestling match with one of her friends, because that friend has been taken away, and then her complaining that "infringes on the right to her body". Obviously such a view would be absurd.


Do you have an argument or a point? The exact relationship between the fetus and the pregnant person is not really relevant except in that the pregnant person is keeping the fetus alive with their body.
#15122340
Puffer Fish wrote:
But we could imagine the fetus is outside her body and she is sustaining it via an umbilical cord attached to the exterior of her body.



What about the *placenta*?


Puffer Fish wrote:
And there is a little bias here, because it is assumed the woman is working in an office. Women in other more physically demanding (or potentially hazardous) jobs may have a pregnancy that interferes with their work.



Fast-pitch softball.


= D


Puffer Fish wrote:
And also points out the inconsistency of being outraged over forced hysterectomies while at the same time caring completely nothing about the many abortions that will happen in the place of those forced hysterectomies not taking place.



It's right back to the issue of the pregnant woman's *intentions* over her own body.

You're *demonizing* the procedure of abortion, making it sound *bad*, for whatever ideological reason you may have.
#15122853
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does that change anything?

The pregnant person us still being deprived of choice and their reproductive rights.

Yes, one could say that the pregnant person is being deprived of "choice" and "reproductive rights".

But the whole point is that their bodily rights would not be violated.

You see, it is much easier for people to agree that a woman has inherent bodily rights that need to be respected than that she has "choice" or "reproductive rights" that are inherently somehow accorded to her through natural law or something like that.

My thought-provoking hypothetical here created a situation where the two were not the same.

(That is, in this case her "choice" and "reproductive rights" did not have anything to do with bodily rights, so we can examine those things in isolation, without the complicating separate aspect of bodily rights obscuring all the issues)
#15122855
Puffer Fish wrote:Yes, one could say that the pregnant person is being deprived of "choice" and "reproductive rights".

But the whole point is that their bodily rights would not be violated.


I would say that their bodily rights are violated since the choice of using their body to create a life has been taken from them.

You see, it is much easier for people to agree that a woman has inherent bodily rights that need to be respected than that she has "choice" or "reproductive rights" that are somehow accorded to her through natural law or something like that.

My thought-provoking hypothetical here created a situation where the two were not the same.

(That is, in this case her "choice" and "reproductive rights" did not have anything to do with bodily rights, so we can examine those things in isolation, without the complicating separate aspect of bodily rights obscuring all the issues)


Choice, when discussing abortion, means having the choice of what to do with one’s own body. It is impossible to separate the two.

In the same way, reproductive rights are a subset of bodily rights. It is impossible to separate these two in reality.
#15122856
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does that change anything?

You are really going to make me spell it out for you, line by line?

If I can show through logical deduction that a woman does not inherently have "choice" and "reproductive rights", and that the entire ethical reason the woman is permitted to have abortion is due to her bodily rights, well then that certainly makes the pro-life position a bit easier to argue for in the long-term, without all these extraneous distracting arguments floating around. Because then the only moral defense the woman has is "her body".

Once we can recognise this, we can work from there. (In another argument that will not be in this particular discussion topic)


Was I able to answer your question? The 'so what' of it.
Or do you just not really want to see the 'so what' of it, because you don't like where this vein of logic will lead.
#15122860
Puffer Fish wrote:You are really going to make me spell it out for you, line by line?

If I can show through logical deduction that a woman does not inherently have "choice" and "reproductive rights", and that the entire ethical reason the woman is permitted to have abortion is due to her bodily rights, well then that certainly makes the pro-life position a bit easier to argue for in the long-term, without all these extraneous distracting arguments floating around. Because then the only moral defense the woman has is "her body".

Once we can recognise this, we can work from there. (In another argument that will not be in this particular discussion topic)


Was I able to answer your question? The 'so what' of it.
Or do you just not really want to see the 'so what' of it, because you don't like where this vein of logic will lead.


No one has inherent rights. Rights exist as social constructs.

So yes, if you can convince enough people in society that women have no rights to do what they want with their own bodies, that would help the “pro-life” people.

I know the big five, the factor model of personal[…]

Election 2020

@ingliz I find these clips in black and white of[…]

November 26, Wednesday President Lincoln goes d[…]

I did say that he governed like a 4chan troll once[…]