After birth abortion?

[Amarok]

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.

This is by far the worst of the bunch 

Weither it's a distinct entity or not is of no consequence it's very presence is a bodily violation and denying the women the right to an abortion is equal  to rape and yes she has absolute  sovereignty over her body enough that she has every right to kill an unwanted intruder violating her form and stealing her bodily resources anything less is an abomination .

I wonder why we afford personhood to corporations and give them more rights than unborn human beings.

Corporations are not persons no matter how much Republicans insist they are .

hen one side claims that women died when abortion was illegal, it seems reasonable to know how man

The number does not matter that any died or their is even the distinct possibility they may die is justification enough

when they say that a fetus is not a person

It's not in reasonable sense can it be a person

 baby has simply changed its physical location from inside the womb to out in the world?

And that's the argument in nut shell .And are you saying that location of something is not important .If my knife goes into a steak i'm eating if it goes into your heart it's murder.In this case one is a violation of her body and is forced reproduction the other is not .

Could viability serve as such a qualifier? That too is problematic. Healthy fetuses naturally develop into infants in the same way that infants naturally develop into mature adults provided the necessary and sufficient conditions are present to meet their needs.

Same could be said of random chunk of DNA someday if master cloning .So i guess i should never scratch my ass as there are possible human back there.You may argue that that's not natural i would ask would you think it any less human ? This argument is just a re-hatch of the potential argument . And again one is forced reproduction the other is not . And their are options to relinquish the burden of later that you wish to deny for the former.

 It seems strange to say that a human being isn't viable simply because it will wither and die for lack of basic necessities. What makes it right to fatally withhold the basic life necessities of a very young human being but not right to do the same to an infant or an adult?

By your logic it's moral to force you to give your blood to support my existence. And again one is forced reproduction the other is not .One is a violation the other is not . And their are options to relinquish the burden of later that you wish to deny for the former.



And lastly no there is no justification for abortion that leads to infanticide or euthanasia those are wholly separate categories  and it's absurd to conflate them .I will say thou the Pro choice side has some dark implications .

[Mystical]

I appreciate the differing viewpoints but I do still want to know. Are the talking points in the article aCtual prochoice stances, and can they then be taken further to the extreme that these "philosophers" claim?

Religion aside, please.

[Amarok]

I appreciate the differing viewpoints but I do still want to know. Are the talking points in the article aCtual prochoice stances, and can they then be taken further to the extreme that these "philosophers" claim?

Religion aside, please.

1. No most of these are simplistic arguments in the extreme 

2. No they are not stances that locally follow to they extreme at least not on the pro choice side .Now the dark implications on the Anti choice side are another matter .

[LadyForCamus]

Pregnancy is a violation of a woman’s body? That’s a new one.

[FatAndFaithless]

Pregnancy is a violation of a woman’s body?  That’s a new one.

To be charitable, I'm assuming Tiz just means the involuntary continuation of a pregnancy.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If you'd like to know how many women died by infection or bleeding to death when abortion was illegal, I can attest to one - my great grandmother in the 1920s.

I’m terribly sorry that your grandmother died in such a horrible way when she was in a clearly vulnerable position. As I said, any death from a botched procedure, illegal or otherwise is a tragedy. Her instance seems to me doubly tragic since two died, both mother and child.

We live in a different time than the 1920’s. On the plus side, we have safe, affordable methods of birth control and our culture is more accepting of single-parenthood. Healthy children are highly desirable to infertile couples and being born a “bastard” is no longer a stigma. And there is at least some, if not particularly generous, financial safety-net programs available to provide assistance to the most disadvantaged. On the negative side, many men skirt their responsibility. I suspect that fewer men feel compelled to “make an honest woman out of her” and shot-gun weddings are a thing of the past. But that also is a stereotype of men and their attitudes. I suspect that there are more than a few men who while taken by surprise would feel duty-bound to support the women they love and realize that they are fathers with equal stake in the well-being of their offspring. My point is that the ubiquity of abortion has wide-ranging and incalculable negative social consequences that cannot be ignored.

Out here in the real world, nearly one in 4 US women have had an abortion…If you have a uterus or know someone who has one, this is a real life issue, not an abstract philosophical argument.

This is not merely a philosophical issue to me either. The idea that my voluntary actions could have resulted in an unwanted pregnancy that might have led to the loss of human life or created familial obligations I was not prepared to take-on had a profound effect on me during my reproductive years both as a young man and affected the choices my wife and I made as a couple when confronted with infertility.

Personal experiences clearly have relevance to others facing similar circumstances. At the same time, I do not think that being female automatically makes anyone’s opinion more authoritative with respect to public policy. IMHO it is unfair and disrespectful to invalidate people’s opinions and experiences based solely on their race, sex, religion or national origin. Conversely, one cannot automatically assume that people who share a demographic automatically share the same opinions. A significant percentage of women are opposed to abortion, or later regret having done so. Their stories matter too.

I have no reason to doubt that 1 in 4 women have had an abortion. According to some 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime. No one would argue that having been raped is a good thing. As I see it, the prevalence of abortion is not a point in its favor; but rather, a sign that something is very wrong with our culture; one that makes so many women feel compelled to abort their children. I don’t know why that it is and there are probably multiple reasons - feeling shamed, the devaluing of motherhood, fearing the burden of raising a child, feeling alone and vulnerable, etc. I would suggest that options, other than taking innocent human life, are, or could be made available, to women with unwanted pregnancies.

All that said, I think there is an argument to be made that abortion is not philosophically objectionable prior to the time when a unborn human has all his or her complete and functional organs. I do not currently hold that position, since no clear line can be drawn and terms like embryo and fetus only describe stages of human development and not an ontologically non-human organism as some would suggest. Scientifically, the pro-life people are correct; abortion takes a human life. In contrast to this, the notion of “personhood”, on which the pro-choice position seems to rely, is a legal fiction, the same one used to describe corporations that are nothing more than business entities. IMO that is a massive category error.

The whole abortion debate to me is way too polarizied. What we need, IMHO and at least in America, is a consensus that avoids the extremes of "abortion is murder" and "abortion on demand". We need sound reasoning from relevant data with a clear focus on defining a proper balance between the value of human life and personal liberties to which most can agree. So if someone wants to have a civil conversation about abortion, I really and truly would be interested in a serious discussion that avoids the slogans and talking points.

[Mister Agenda]

I appreciate the differing viewpoints but I do still want to know. Are the talking points in the article aCtual prochoice stances, and can they then be taken further to the extreme that these "philosophers" claim?

Religion aside, please.

One of the main prochoice arguments is the bodily sovereignty of the mohter. That one no longer applies after birth.

[Amarok]

Pregnancy is a violation of a woman’s body?  That’s a new one.

Yup if it's against  the women's will it is a violation

---

I’m terribly sorry that your grandmother died in such a horrible way when she was in a clearly vulnerable position. As I said, any death from a botched procedure, illegal or otherwise is a tragedy. Her instance seems to me doubly tragic since two died, both mother and child.

We live in a different time than the 1920’s. On the plus side, we have safe, affordable methods of birth control and our culture is more accepting of single-parenthood. Healthy children are highly desirable to infertile couples and being born a “bastard” is no longer a stigma. And there is at least some, if not particularly generous, financial safety-net programs available to provide assistance to the most disadvantaged. On the negative side, many men skirt their responsibility. I suspect that fewer men feel compelled to “make an honest woman out of her” and shot-gun weddings are a thing of the past. But that also is a stereotype of men and their attitudes. I suspect that there are more than a few men who while taken by surprise would feel duty-bound to support the women they love and realize that they are fathers with equal stake in the well-being of their offspring. My point is that the ubiquity of abortion has wide-ranging and incalculable negative social consequences that cannot be ignored.

The times are irrelevant the central danger remains as for the social consequences total Conservative tripe

---

This is not merely a philosophical issue to me either. The idea that my voluntary actions could have resulted in an unwanted pregnancy that might have led to the loss of human life or created familial obligations I was not prepared to take-on had a profound effect on me during my reproductive years both as a young man and affected the choices my wife and I made as a couple when confronted with infertility. 

Of no relevance 

Personal experiences clearly have relevance to others facing similar circumstances. At the same time, I do not think that being female automatically makes anyone’s opinion more authoritative with respect to public policy. IMHO it is unfair and disrespectful to invalidate people’s opinions and experiences based solely on their race, sex, religion or national origin. Conversely, one cannot automatically assume that people who share a demographic automatically share the same opinions. A significant percentage of women are opposed to abortion, or later regret having done so. Their stories matter too.

Nope their stories are relevance and no men don't get to tell women what's what   

have no reason to doubt that 1 in 4 women have had an abortion. According to some 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime. No one would argue that having been raped is a good thing. As I see it, the prevalence of abortion is not a point in its favor; but rather, a sign that something is very wrong with our culture; one that makes so many women feel compelled to abort their children. I don’t know why that it is and there are probably multiple reasons - feeling shamed, the devaluing of motherhood, fearing the burden of raising a child, feeling alone and vulnerable, etc. I would suggest that options, other than taking innocent human life, are, or could be made available, to women with unwanted pregnancies. 

That's just a heap opinions 

All that said, I think there is an argument to be made that abortion is not philosophically objectionable prior to the time when a unborn human has all his or her complete and functional organs. I do not currently hold that position, since no clear line can be drawn and terms like embryo and fetus only describe stages of human development and not an ontologically non-human organism as some would suggest. Scientifically, the pro-life people are correct; abortion takes a human life. In contrast to this, the notion of “personhood”, on which the pro-choice position seems to rely, is a legal fiction, the same one used to describe corporations that are nothing more than business entities. IMO that is a massive category error.

Rubbish biology favors  pro choice 

The whole abortion debate to me is way too polarizied. What we need, IMHO and at least in America, is a consensus that avoids the extremes of "abortion is murder" and "abortion on demand". We need sound reasoning from relevant data with a clear focus on defining a proper balance between the value of human life and personal liberties to which most can agree. So if someone wants to have a civil conversation about abortion, I really and truly would be interested in a serious discussion that avoids the slogans and talking points.

Too bad you talk the talk.....

---

Pregnancy is a violation of a woman’s body?  That’s a new one.

To be charitable, I'm assuming Tiz just means the involuntary continuation of a pregnancy.

Pretty much

[bennyboy]

The whole abortion debate to me is way too polarizied. What we need, IMHO and at least in America, is a consensus that avoids the extremes of "abortion is murder" and "abortion on demand". We need sound reasoning from relevant data with a clear focus on defining a proper balance between the value of human life and personal liberties to which most can agree. So if someone wants to have a civil conversation about abortion, I really and truly would be interested in a serious discussion that avoids the slogans and talking points.

Here's how I see it. Nobody, on any side of the fence, wants to murder a human being. Therefore, the point for discussion is what constitutes a human being.

The Catholic position is that God infuses a zygote with a soul upon conception, so humanity starts at that point. My position is this: I don't know from here about souls, but I do value my personality, my memories and predilections, and my capacity for sensation. Whether there is/isn't a soul, and what the consequences of such a hypothetical entity would be if aborted, are far beyond my ken, and anyone who pretends otherwise is, in my opinion, either making stuff up or choosing to believe someone who has made stuff up.

Therefore, I'd say that at a minimum, a fetus would need to have a sufficient nervous system to experience itself and its environment in order to even be considered for legal protection.

Let me reel it in and just say: I don't think a fertilized cell is a human being, any more than a seed is a 200-foot Redwood tree. If I decide to dispose of some seeds, will I be charged for cutting down a tree?

[LadyForCamus]

The whole abortion debate to me is way too polarizied. What we need, IMHO and at least in America, is a consensus that avoids the extremes of "abortion is murder" and "abortion on demand". We need sound reasoning from relevant data with a clear focus on defining a proper balance between the value of human life and personal liberties to which most can agree. So if someone wants to have a civil conversation about abortion, I really and truly would be interested in a serious discussion that avoids the slogans and talking points.

Here's how I see it.  Nobody, on any side of the fence, wants to murder a human being.  Therefore, the point for discussion is what constitutes a human being.

The Catholic position is that God infuses a zygote with a soul upon conception, so humanity starts at that point.  My position is this: I don't know from here about souls, but I do value my personality, my memories and predilections, and my capacity for sensation.  Whether there is/isn't a soul, and what the consequences of such a hypothetical entity would be if aborted, are far beyond my ken, and anyone who pretends otherwise is, in my opinion, either making stuff up or choosing to believe someone who has made stuff up.

Therefore, I'd say that at a minimum, a fetus would need to have a sufficient nervous system to experience itself and its environment in order to even be considered for legal protection.

Let me reel it in and just say: I don't think a fertilized cell is a human being, any more than a seed is a 200-foot Redwood tree.  If I decide to dispose of some seeds, will I be charged for cutting down a tree?

This is a succinct list from MedlinePlus:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm

[url=https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm][/url]Noteworthy, atleast for me, is the fetus’s ability to hear at around 19 weeks.  Around this time is also when the mother can feel the fetus responding to her movements.  Now, I’m not saying that a fetus reacting to stimuli necessarily means that it is having a true experience (whatever that means?), but I think it’s certainly a conversation worth having.