Infanticide

[OzzyKP]

Right, and 16 year old teens cannot vote either. Not everyone who is a person can vote.

Not yet anyways.

www.youthrights.org
www.youthrightscanada.org
www.votesat16.org.uk

Give me some time, I'll make it happen.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Give me some time, I'll make it happen.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
And the fetus can't? Hey, it's using those organs too!

You got it backwards. The mother is not using the placenta, it merely is there for the embryo. It is only a one way relationship. Thus, your analogy is flawed.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is only a one way relationship.

Then a woman is entirely unaffected and unchanged by her pregnancy?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Heresson
And we do not kill animals unless we want their meat (and it only applies to non-vegetarians), skin or whatever, do we?

My point was there's nothing uniquely human about these actions, so they cannot be used to support the point that these foetuses are human beings.

[Sava]

wow that was some rant I went on...

anyways, sorry for personal stuff, I got carried away...

my last point: pro-lifers = fascists... they don't care about finding an effective solution to stop abortions, they just want the government to break down doors and arrest good doctors.

have a nice discussion

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Any efforts to lower the voting age in France?

I hear a lot out of Germany and the UK, but nothing from France. Maybe we just aren't hearing about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

anyways, sorry for personal stuff, I got carried away...

No prob...

Spice of life and all that.

[Spiffor]

Ozzy:
The only efforts I'm aware of come from the Green Party, as it is part of their suggested institutional reform (and they mostly target the youth). I don't know if there is any lobby about it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then a woman is entirely unaffected and unchanged by her pregnancy?

I think you have misconstrued my point. The foetus depends on the mother, the mother does not depend on the foetus.

[Ben Kenobi]

the mother does not depend on the foetus.

Thank you. That is a much better clarification.

However, the infant does depend on her mother, so it is useless to argue independency as a basis for personhood.

[Drogue]

I have to admit, I agree somewhat with Professor Harris. In an overcrowded world, I don't see it as being necessarily wrong to remove newborn babies with genetic defects. What is the difference between that, and the couple not having conceived? In the end, the result is the same, there is no new baby.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, the infant does depend on her mother, so it is useless to argue independency as a basis for personhood.

Personally, I think the mother has a right to remove her support. If the baby is born, it goes up for adoption, if the baby is not born, then it is either induced, or aborted, depending on it's feasability in the outside world. I disagree with the professor in that I do see a difference between in and out of the birth canal. In the mother, it is part of the mother. It is a parasite, it feeds of the mother, using up her resources. Therefore while it is part of her, it is her decision what to do with it. If she wishes to withdraw support, then she may. However, if the baby survives on the outside, whether born normally or induced because the mother wishes to withdraw support, then the baby goes into state care, and it is the states decision what happens. If the state decides it does not wish to support those with genetic disorders, then the state can withdraw support, and the baby dies. I don't see a difference between killing it and letting it die, since the result is the same. Indeed, the former can be far more humane. I also don't see a difference between conceiving and not giving birth and not conceiving. The result is the same - there is no baby.

I have a question. What would a pro-lifer think of a women who does something to herself, such as smoke, starve herself, or anything like that, while pregnant, with the intent of having a miscarriage? Is that abortion, and is it wrong? She is harming herself, and that is having an effect on the foetus, but she is not harming the foetus directly (the foetus is never touched). IMHO, if the mother can harm herself, and in doing so kill the foetus, then the foetus is part of the mothers body. She is not harming the foetus directly, but it dies because she harms herself, as the vessel.

[Elok]

No, the woman is not symbiotically dependent on the child, but to drag up my already-tired analogy, I don't need a siamese twin either. He'd just be using my organs to keep his stupid brain alive.

And deliberate omission of action that you know would save someone's life, especially when omitted for the express purpose of terminating that life, is hardly different from deliberate killing in my book, Drogue. If some slow old lady is crossing the street in front of my tow truck, the "walk" sign wasn't on, I'm running behind, and it'd be much easier to keep going, why should I alter my planned course of action, i.e. slam on the brakes, to maintain the life of an organism that has linked its life to my actions without my consent? If she cannot adapt to live in an environment without my assistance, how is that my fault? Huh?

As to your second argument, secondhand smoke kills plenty of people every year, as do drunk drivers, crackheads, and suicidal poets with kids who decide to be good mothers and take their precious little ones to heaven with them via their cars' exhaust pipes. The fates of two people can be linked in many ways, but that doesn't mean one is part of the other. See my point? And yeah, it's an abortion all the same. I know it'll probably happen anyway should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Slavery still happens in America too. The important thing is that the government not legitimize such behavior by making it legal, and get rid of it as much as possible.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


My point was there's nothing uniquely human about these actions, so they cannot be used to support the point that these foetuses are human beings.

If it's not human, what is it? An animal? An allien?
It's actions don't have to indicate it's human. They indicate it is a life form, it takes actions of its own, it is not a part of its mother's body. Have You seen a liver do that?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drogue
I have to admit, I agree somewhat with Professor Harris. In an overcrowded world, I don't see it as being necessarily wrong to remove newborn babies with genetic defects. What is the difference between that, and the couple not having conceived? In the end, the result is the same, there is no new baby.

but we don't live on an overcrowded world

there are just some places where the infrastructure is bad or capitalism occurs

I mean, wouldn't it be a lot better to take care of overcrowding issues be killing the old instead of the young?

Jon Miller

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
If it's not human, what is it? An animal? An allien?
It's actions don't have to indicate it's human. They indicate it is a life form, it takes actions of its own, it is not a part of its mother's body. Have You seen a liver do that?

ABout as often as an embryo.

[Heresson]

[Dr Strangelove]

Suppose it is found that personality has major genetic determinants? Would it not then be OK for a woman to kill her child if she found its personality objectionable? What if the kid cries too much or is a nipple-biter? Aren't whiney or aggressive people undesireable?

You know, it wasn't too long ago, even in this country, that a husband could literally get away with murdering his wife simply because legal opinion did not consider what went on between a husband and wife to be the jurisdiction of the law. Women not being able to vote aggrevated the situation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but we don't live on an overcrowded world

We do live in an overcrowded world. The human population already has exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth by about 2 billion.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I mean, wouldn't it be a lot better to take care of overcrowding issues be killing the old instead of the young?

That's your own personal take

[Jon Miller]

no it hasn't

you are talking crap

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I mean, about space

we deffinitely have enough raw space

food?

we basically feed everyone now, in fact the US throws away enough food to feed itself and europe all over again

and if we went vegeterrian instead of meat eating, we would haev 7 times the available food that we ahve now

so where are you getting this crap UR, back up your claims

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

The agriculture methods in the US are not sustainable. They rely on more and more synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. That's why all that land is now completely messed up, and you couldn't do a thing without a lot of those chemicals.

[Ben Kenobi]

Drogue:

I'll answer the last point first, and the first last.

What would a pro-lifer think of a women who does something to herself, such as smoke, starve herself, or anything like that, while pregnant, with the intent of having a miscarriage?

My mom did her Master's thesis on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. She, and I both agreed that society would be best served through voluntary discouragement of alcohol during pregnency. It seems to work well, as a social taboo.

Now, for a woman who wants to harm herself to kill her child obviously has other stuff going on in her life, because the natural impulse is to take care of the child. I would recommend counselling to help with the self-destructive behavior, or in more extreme cases, assigning the woman to detox, where they will help get her off drugs, helping both her and her child.

If there are other motivations, such as lack of financial support, we can provide those things. An abusive boyfriend/husband, again can be dealt with through placing the woman in a shelter, or even being taken in by a friend. These actions are really a cry for help.

IMHO, if the mother can harm herself, and in doing so kill the foetus, then the foetus is part of the mothers body. She is not harming the foetus directly, but it dies because she harms herself, as the vessel

No. The problem is that you confuse the connection with being a part of the mother. The unborn child has to have some connection to the mother through the umbilical cord, which supplies nutrients to the child. What happens with alcohol, and other toxic substances, is that they cross the umbilical cord, just like anything else. So the child and mother, though connected, are not the same. The child has it's own blood type, genetic code, and among many other things, that identify the child apart from the mother.

Personally, I think the mother has a right to remove her support.

A mother who did so after the child was born, would fall under criminal negligence. Why should it be different, before birth than after?

In the mother, it is part of the mother. It is a parasite, it feeds of the mother, using up her resources.

This is a contradiction. By definition, a parasite is not part of a host. A parasite may attach itself to a host, but it cannot be part of the host.

[quote]
Therefore while it is part of her, it is her decision what to do with it.
[/qutoe]

No. By your own reasoning, the child cannot be part of the mother.

I don't see a difference between killing it and letting it die, since the result is the same.

First off, the child is not an 'it', but he or she. Gender is determined at conception, along with the genetic code.

Secondly, abortion is not 'letting the child die'. Abortion, whether performed in a suction vacuum machine, or by curettage, rips the child to shreds. So much so, that the abortionist must reassemble the pieces to ensure that none remain inside the woman as possible loci for infection.

I also don't see a difference between conceiving and not giving birth and not conceiving.

All the difference in the world. You again, do not understand what abortion is all about. Abortion is an act of violence that kills a child, as she develops in the womb of her mother. Choosing not to have a child is different from ripping that child to pieces.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
My mom did her Master's thesis on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. She, and I both agreed that society would be best served through voluntary discouragement of alcohol during pregnency. It seems to work well, as a social taboo.

Now, for a woman who wants to harm herself to kill her child obviously has other stuff going on in her life, because the natural impulse is to take care of the child. I would recommend counselling to help with the self-destructive behavior, or in more extreme cases, assigning the woman to detox, where they will help get her off drugs, helping both her and her child.

If there are other motivations, such as lack of financial support, we can provide those things. An abusive boyfriend/husband, again can be dealt with through placing the woman in a shelter, or even being taken in by a friend. These actions are really a cry for help.

While that may be true in some cases, I do not necessarily think that it is just a cry for help. Presume that abortions are illegal. I could understand women going to those lengths in order not to have a baby, and not because of any other condition. They simply want to keep their life as it is. Would that constitute abortion? Should it be illegal to smoke/drink during pregnancy, because the woman would be harming another being?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A mother who did so after the child was born, would fall under criminal negligence. Why should it be different, before birth than after?

Giving your baby away for adoption is not criminal negligence, but leaving it to die is. Removing a baby from a mother is not negligent, as it is going into state care. However if the baby does not survive, as it is not well enough developed yet, that it dies. If the state decides it does not wish to care for extremely premature babies, then that is the states choice. I'm arguing that the women has the right, at all times during pregnancy and after pregnancy, to withdraw her support. What actually happens to the baby is up to the state, but the women has the right to have the baby taken out of her (if pregnant) or taken into care (if alive).

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. The problem is that you confuse the connection with being a part of the mother. The unborn child has to have some connection to the mother through the umbilical cord, which supplies nutrients to the child. What happens with alcohol, and other toxic substances, is that they cross the umbilical cord, just like anything else. So the child and mother, though connected, are not the same. The child has it's own blood type, genetic code, and among many other things, that identify the child apart from the mother.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is a contradiction. By definition, a parasite is not part of a host. A parasite may attach itself to a host, but it cannot be part of the host.

Ok, let us presume it is late in the term. I'll withdraw the part of the mother statement, since you are correct, it cannot be both a parasite and part of her body. However it is still feeding off her, using her resources. As Provost stated earlier, the difference between a symbiote and a parasite is desire. If the mother does not desire the foetus, then it is a parasite, using her body. Parasites do not have a right to infest someone's body, IMHO. If the host decides she does not with to continue to use her resources, her body, to support a parasite, it should be removed, IMHO.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First off, the child is not an 'it', but he or she. Gender is determined at conception, along with the genetic code.

A dog can also be a he or a she, but it is generally refered to as an it, when the sex is not known. I don't like using the term he/she because it is cumbersome and unnecessary, IMHO.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, abortion is not 'letting the child die'. Abortion, whether performed in a suction vacuum machine, or by curettage, rips the child to shreds. So much so, that the abortionist must reassemble the pieces to ensure that none remain inside the woman as possible loci for infection.

True, but my point was that I do not see a difference between killing it, and letting it die. The results are the same. IMHO, it is often more humane to kill something quickly than to let it die slowly, so if the foetus wouldn't survive outside the mother, and the mother wishes to withdraw her support, I don't see a difference between removing it and letting it die, or killing it.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
All the difference in the world. You again, do not understand what abortion is all about. Abortion is an act of violence that kills a child, as she develops in the womb of her mother. Choosing not to have a child is different from ripping that child to pieces.

No, I do understand what abortion is. I do not see the difference between not conceiving and conceiving and having the foetus killed. The result is the same - no new life.