(November 2, 2016 at 9:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:Is a fetus part of a woman's body or is it a distinct organism? I think it is hard to argue that fetuses serve any necessary biological function of a woman, similar to the way spleens or lungs do. As such, fetuses are not in fact parts of pregnant women's bodies. Therefore the argument that a right abortion is grounded in the woman's ownership of her body is a complete non sequitor.

One would think that for it to be a complete non sequitor, the fetus would have to be outside of the woman's body....

Is or is not a fetus a body part?

I think it's completely irrelevant whether it's part of the woman or not. The question is... if the fetus is aborted does it suffer and even if it does suffer would the mother always suffer more than the fetus if she was not allowed an abortion when she wanted one? I think so yes. A female adult being violated by being not allowed to do what she wants to do with her body suffers more than a fetus.

If a mother could choose whether she wanted to have the abortion or not... would it be more moral for her to not desire the abortion than for her to desire it if the fetus could suffer? Not necessarily at all, I think. Perhaps bringing a child into the world would cause more suffering for the mother the child and others than its nonexistence. Having children is not necessarily a good thing. Is the mother a good mother and will the child be happy or will it depress the mother and others more than make them happy (in the long run, ultimately a human adult is being raised not just a baby or a child)?

Perhaps it would be moral if a mother who would be a good mother--and raise their child to be a very happy and healthy adult and that child also made her happy and grew up to be a good influence on others around them--didn't want to abort a fetus in the late stages... but if the mother does want to abort the fetus she should be allowed to because she'd suffer a lot more than a fetus if she was prevented from doing so.

Best way to reduce abortions is to legalize gay marriage everywhere and allow gays to adopt. Lesbians don't have abortions, and they adopt kids. Its' win-win really. My youngest daughter and her wife adopted three! And they want to adopt more eventually. Also comprehensive sex education, affordable birth control (Catholics really shoot themselves in the foot with all the anti-contraceptive nonsense) and a lower age of consent (which lowers teen pregnancy rates). These laws should be designed to protect exploitation of teens, rather than outlawing what they do with each other. I speak from experience, as I had children when I was VERY young.

(November 2, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I think it's completely irrelevant whether it's part of the woman or not.

If so, then the argument that abortion should be permitted on the basis of a fetus being "her body" is also irrelevant. You cannot have it both ways.

(November 2, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: The question is... if the fetus is aborted does it suffer and even if it does suffer would the mother always suffer more than the fetus if she was not allowed an abortion when she wanted one? I think so yes.

---

A female adult being violated by being not allowed to do what she wants to do with her body suffers more than a fetus.

If a mother could choose whether she wanted to have the abortion or not... would it be more moral for her to not desire the abortion than for her to desire it if the fetus could suffer? Not necessarily at all, I think. Perhaps bringing a child into the world would cause more suffering for the mother the child and others than its nonexistence. Having children is not necessarily a good thing. Is the mother a good mother and will the child be happy or will it depress the mother and others more than make them happy (in the long run, ultimately a human adult is being raised not just a baby or a child)?

Perhaps it would be moral if a mother who would be a good mother--and raise their child to be a very happy and healthy adult and that child also made her happy and grew up to be a good influence on others around them--didn't want to abort a fetus in the late stages

---

... but if the mother does want to abort the fetus she should be allowed to because she'd suffer a lot more than a fetus if she was prevented from doing so.

Making a utilitarian argument with suffering as the sole criteria is problematic. If you apply that reasoning to cases other than abortion the flaw becomes immediately apparent. If suffering is the only criteria then it would be morally permissible for one person to benefit from causing the quick and painless death of another, regardless of age or circumstances. Secondly you have applied a double standard. For the fetus, you define suffering only in terms of physical pain and not loss of potential goods. But for the mother, you define suffering in terms of lost opportunities and/or incurring future obligations.

(November 2, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Divinity Wrote: Best way to reduce abortions is to legalize gay marriage everywhere and allow gays to adopt.  Lesbians don't have abortions, and they adopt kids.  Its' win-win really.  My youngest daughter and her wife adopted three!  And they want to adopt more eventually.  Also comprehensive sex education, affordable birth control (Catholics really shoot themselves in the foot with all the anti-contraceptive nonsense) and a lower age of consent (which lowers teen pregnancy rates).  These laws should be designed to protect exploitation of teens, rather than outlawing what they do with each other.    I speak from experience, as I had children when I was VERY young.

I refuse to believe that you are old enough to have a daughter ready to take on that level of responsibility.

(November 2, 2016 at 4:02 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I refuse to believe that you are old enough to have a daughter ready to take on that level of responsibility.

I'm in my 40's, and my daughter is in her 20's.  She's definitely ready for the responsibility.

The Clinton Foundation probe is ramping up. Should there be a separate thread ?

Or maybe a whole sub-fora in the politics section . . . . .

The thread should probably die. The news outlets on which leftists rely (i.e. the liberal MSM) are suppressing the most recent news about FBI probes of the Clinton Foundation, the emails on Weiners laptop, DOJ (Lorreta Lynch) interference with the investigation, etc. Try finding any of these recent developments on the supposedly neutral NPR...

http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/

I keep hoping that at some point the already overwhelming avalanche of new developments would compel NPR et al to give at least token coverage but instead they are giving the general public crickets. I used to think the liberal bias was largely unconscious. Now I know better. The MSM are not simply corrupt but dishonest.

As for FOX news, well, liberals don't watch because they would rather bury their heads in the sand and make excuses than admit that Hillary Clinton has more likely than not criminally undermined the instituions of our democracy by abusing public office to the detriment of national security and American interests:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2..._case.html

But none of that matters to liberals because Donald Trump said "pussy".

(November 3, 2016 at 10:35 am)vorlon13 Wrote: The Clinton Foundation probe is ramping up. Should there be a separate thread ?

Or maybe a whole sub-fora in the politics section . . . . .

Might not be a bad idea. These investigations are going in so many directions, Wikileaks, Clinton Foundation, and her private email server.

wiener's wiener . . . .