Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Ben Kenobi]

Jack the Bodiless

Most post-rape abortions would (obviously) be done as soon as possible. But, at 8-13 weeks, there is no "child" that can "feel pain": merely a fetus with a semi-functioning nervous system that can produce reflex responses. You need sentience to truly "feel pain".

Two points here.

It is not obvious that abortions done because of rape are done earlier than 8 weeks. I asked, and you have not been able to prove your point.

Secondly, how do we know that someone feels pain?
The 'reflex response' of the fetus is no different from the reflex we exhibit when we feel pain. Hence, it is likely that the unborn child can feel pain, same as we do.
The neurological structures required for pain sensation are all formed by the 13 week at the latest, but as soon as 8 weeks.

Even so, may I slit your throat when you are under anaesthetia? What is important to personhood is not the current capacity to feel pain, but the inherent capacity. An unborn child who is younger than 8 weeks is still a person because it has the inherent capacity to feel pain, to attain sentience.

BTW- fetus merely means 'little one.' Fetus denotes a stage of life, similar to the distinction between infant and adolescent.

The woman is not to blame: she took every reasonable precaution but was unlucky, just as a woman who gets raped despite carrying a can of Mace is unlucky.

See my previous posts or duke it out with cyclotron.
Trust me, you don't want to do that. The woman is responsible for her actions if she consents to sex. One of the unfortunate consequences of sex is pregnancy, even with contraceptives. Even if a father wore a condom, yet still gets a woman pregnant, he is required to pay child support. Therefore the mother is responsible for her own actions.

No, the rapist is not directly responsible for the torture.

Then why punish rapists at all?

Am I serious about the physical and psychological effects of abortion? 90 percent of women who have abortions report a negative effect afterwards, ranging from death and fertility problems, all the way down to depression. Suicide among women who abort is higher than women who carry to term. These are the factors you ignore, when counselling distressed and vunerable women to have an abortion.

-cyclotron

A trespasser is one who trespasses, whether he did on purpose or not.

How can an unborn child trespass into the mother's womb when it has known no other existence outside? I call that a home, and the fetus is in the home where it belongs. Not trespassing in the least bit.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
How can an unborn child trespass into the mother's womb when it has known no other existence outside? I call that a home, and the fetus is in the home where it belongs. Not trespassing in the least bit.

Trespass: To enter unlawfully upon the land or property of another.

The "other existence" known or not known by the trespasser is irrelevant. A baby, or anything else present in the uterus of a woman without her consent is what I would call a trespasser. Even if my property is the only place another can survive, I am not obligated to let people in and I have the full right to remove people who enter (or are forced in) without my consent. The fact that the subject is not viable outside my property is irrelevant as far as my property rights.

Your concept of a "home" may apply to you, but why impress that on others? If the reason you oppose abortion in the case of rape is because the womb is the "home" of the fetus, than that is fine but I would advise you to restrict your views to yourself, rather than make disagreeing with you unlawful.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Am I serious about the physical and psychological effects of abortion? 90 percent of women who have abortions report a negative effect afterwards, ranging from death and fertility problems, all the way down to depression. Suicide among women who abort is higher than women who carry to term. These are the factors you ignore, when counselling distressed and vunerable women to have an abortion.

But how high the suicide rate among rape victims which have become pregnant by the rape would be if Abortion is made illegal for them, even you can´t say for sure.

I guess it would be very high, and at least higher than the suicide rate among them at current, where they are allowed to abort

[Jack the Bodiless]

Most post-rape abortions would (obviously) be done as soon as possible. But, at 8-13 weeks, there is no "child" that can "feel pain": merely a fetus with a semi-functioning nervous system that can produce reflex responses. You need sentience to truly "feel pain".

Two points here.

It is not obvious that abortions done because of rape are done earlier than 8 weeks. I asked, and you have not been able to prove your point.

Because I don't have the relevant statistics. But it's time to use a little common sense here. We're talking about rape victims who find out that they are pregnant and wish to get rid of the unwanted fetus. WHY would they want to wait?

Can you provide evidence that post-rape abotions tend to be late abortions? Of course not. The only reason you WANT them to be late abortions is so that you can drag in the "baby was cut into pieces" scenario.

Secondly, how do we know that someone feels pain?
The 'reflex response' of the fetus is no different from the reflex we exhibit when we feel pain. Hence, it is likely that the unborn child can feel pain, same as we do.
The neurological structures required for pain sensation are all formed by the 13 week at the latest, but as soon as 8 weeks.

The BRAIN is very primitive at this stage. By this argument, it is immoral to poison cockroaches.

The woman is not to blame: she took every reasonable precaution but was unlucky, just as a woman who gets raped despite carrying a can of Mace is unlucky.

See my previous posts or duke it out with cyclotron.
Trust me, you don't want to do that. The woman is responsible for her actions if she consents to sex. One of the unfortunate consequences of sex is pregnancy, even with contraceptives. Even if a father wore a condom, yet still gets a woman pregnant, he is required to pay child support. Therefore the mother is responsible for her own actions.

By exactly the same argument, any woman who ventures outside and then gets raped in a park is responsible for her actions and therefore "deserves it". She should have stayed in. If she HAS to go outside, she should wear a burqua just in case a passing rapist finds her attractive.

A woman who uses a contraceptive has taken reasonable precautions. Total abstinence from sex except for procreation is NOT a reasonable level of prevention: it is excessive.

And when people suffer misfortune despite taking reasonable precautions, this is NOT an excuse to do nothing to help when those precautions fail. By this argument, we should never prosecute successful rapists at all: the victim's precautions failed, it's her fault.

No, the rapist is not directly responsible for the torture.

Then why punish rapists at all?

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. The rapist is responsible for the RAPE. The rapist is not directly responsible for the ongoing torture that is the direct result of a total ban on post-rape abortions. Those responsible for the ban are the ones directly responsible for its effects.

Am I serious about the physical and psychological effects of abortion? 90 percent of women who have abortions report a negative effect afterwards, ranging from death and fertility problems, all the way down to depression. Suicide among women who abort is higher than women who carry to term. These are the factors you ignore, when counselling distressed and vunerable women to have an abortion.

Again, I can only conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse.

OF COURSE suicide rates are higher among women who abort! You're comparing women with unwanted preganancies with women who don't have any problems!

And where did this "counselling distressed and vunerable women to have an abortion" garbage come from?

We were discussing rape victims who come forward because they desperately want an abortion!

You seem to be resorting to increasingly desperate tactics to avoid facing the fact that you are pro-torture. We've had an irrelevant reference to third-trimester abortions, an irrelevant comparison to normal pregnanacies, an attempt to equate "anti-torture" with "pro-rape", and an accusation that "vulnerable women" are being coerced into having abortions they don't really want.

Any more red herrings you'd like to add to that shoal?

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you provide evidence that post-rape abotions tend to be late abortions? Of course not. The only reason you WANT them to be late abortions is so that you can drag in the "baby was cut into pieces" scenario.

Jack,
Don't put words in my mouth please. Nowhere do I say that abortions due to rape should be late-term abortions, rather I expect most abortions from rape to be performed sometime between 8-13 weeks.

I understand that women who desperately want to have an abortion would have abortions earlier, but earlier than 8 weeks? That is the question.

The BRAIN is very primitive at this stage. By this argument, it is immoral to poison cockroaches.

Cockroaches are not going to become sentient. An unborn child will. That's the difference.

By exactly the same argument, any woman who ventures outside and then gets raped in a park is responsible for her actions and therefore "deserves it".

Your words, not mine. Where have I said that women who are raped deserved their fate? The 'ongoing torture' as you put it would not have happened unless there was a rapist. The woman who is raped is not responsible for her rape because she had no choice in the matter.

OF COURSE suicide rates are higher among women who abort! You're comparing women with unwanted preganancies with women who don't have any problems!

If pregnancy is torture, why are the suicide rates for women who bear their child to term not higher than for an abortion? If abortion will end her torture, why do women feel more distressed after the abortion than before? Also, many unplanned pregnancies are carried to term. How do you figure that these mothers do not have problems of their own?

and an accusation that "vulnerable women" are being coerced into having abortions they don't really want.

My verb was counselled, not coerced. Read it again.

Proteus:
We don't have specific statistics for the suicide rate of women who are raped and abort, and for women who are raped and choose to keep their baby.

However, we do have statistics for the overall cases, pregnancies that result in abortions, and pregnancies that result in births.

Abortion will not 'unrape' the woman, it will not release her from the pain and suffering of the rape anymore than smashing another's car will repair your smashed up car. It might vent anger, but it won't heal scars.

cyclotron-

I'm disappointed. If you don't agree with my statement, say why.

Trespass: To enter unlawfully upon the land or property of another.

In what sense does the unborn child enter the mother? The sperm of the rapist enters the mother, trespassing on the property of the mother. The mother's egg is fertilised by the trespassing sperm, forming the zygote which grows within the mother. The zygote is not formed outside of the mother, and then forced into the mother. Ergo, the rapist trespasses, while the unborn child does not.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I'm disappointed. If you don't agree with my statement, say why.

I thought I'd been fairly clear.

In what sense does the unborn child enter the mother? The sperm of the rapist enters the mother, trespassing on the property of the mother. The mother's egg is fertilised by the trespassing sperm, forming the zygote which grows within the mother. The zygote is not formed outside of the mother, and then forced into the mother. Ergo, the rapist trespasses, while the unborn child does not.

The child is in the mother, and exists there without the consent of the mother. How the child is generated is irrelevant; if something exists in the mother that the mother did not consent to have there it is trespassing, and the mother has a right to remove it.

The central point is that nothing may exist in the mother or use the resources of the mother without her permission. If baby is produced without her implicit consent she has a right to disconnect herself from it, even if that results in the death of the baby.

It makes perfect sense that only I can permit another being to exist in and use my body. If a being is forced there without my consent, regradless of fault, I have a right to remove it because the baby's right to life does not and cannot impinge on my rights to my own body and property.

I understand arguments against abortion perfectly; consensual sex implies consent. Rape, however, is significantly different; the lack of consent is what invalidates your tort case and validates the "concert violinist" situation.

The concept of a "home" and "innocence" on the part of any party is a respectable moral belief, but it is not a universal belief and I feel it should not be applied in a national manner because it is so subjective.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Proteus:
We don't have specific statistics for the suicide rate of women who are raped and abort, and for women who are raped and choose to keep their baby.

However, we do have statistics for the overall cases, pregnancies that result in abortions, and pregnancies that result in births.

And it wouldn´t matter.
What I aslked for was, how the statistics look like if a raped woman would be forced to carry the child til birth.
At the moment the raped women are able to choose, so that those women who bear the child of the rape have deliberately chosen to do so, while other rape victims, who think they can´t stand the pregnancy are free to abort it.
So I think, the statistics of suicides by raped women who carry the child wouldn´t be extremely higher than those of normal pregnent women.
But what would be if those women (who normally had aborted their child) would be forced to bear the the child, maybe because the Laws have been made stricter?
I think it would result in an increase of suicides of raped women who become pregnant as a result of the rape.

Abortion will not 'unrape' the woman, it will not release her from the pain and suffering of the rape anymore than smashing another's car will repair your smashed up car. It might vent anger, but it won't heal scars.

Abortion won´t make the woman forget the rape and heal the psychological scars that´s correct,
but having to bear the child for nine month would remind the mother always of the rape,
probably resulting in more Difficulties for her psyche to heal.

Because of the Pregnancy there are also other matters to think about.
An Woman who has a job could for example loose the job because she normally has to take a leave for at least the last months of her pregnancy,
or a female student who can´t attend to exams because of the pregnancy.

So if she is very unfortunate, she not only has those memorys of the abuse and the psychological scars, but also has her future destroyed by the rape.

[Ben Kenobi]

Proteus-

Because of the Pregnancy there are also other matters to think about. An Woman who has a job could for example loose the job because she normally has to take a leave for at least the last months of her pregnancy, or a female student who can´t attend to exams because of the pregnancy.

In the former case, I would expect the employer not to fire the mother, not without compensated maternity leave. IIRC don't think they can fire a woman for being pregnant without compensation. In the latter, I would expect the university to defer the exams due to a legitimate medical condition.

But excellent points nonetheless. I believe that if one is asking a women who was raped to carry her child to term, that you have to do whatever it takes to help her.
She is making a sacrifice for her own child so that he might have a life to enjoy, and should be encouraged to do so. There already are a great deal of people who volunteer in crisis pregnancy centres designed to help these women.

Without these structures, then I do believe these women would be more likely to commit suicide, if the law were to change. With this help, there is no need for a women in this situation to have her future ruined.

Be honest though, wouldn't these services receive more funding without abortion?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
She is making a sacrifice for her own child so that he might have a life to enjoy, and should be encouraged to do so.

It's not really a sacrifice if she has no choice but to do it. A sacrafice on her part would infer that she actually chose to sacrifice something.

[Ben Kenobi]

Split my post, might be a little easier to read.
Sorry if I'm too slow for some.

Cyclotron-

The concept of a "home" and "innocence" on the part of any party is a respectable moral belief, but it is not a universal belief and I feel it should not be applied in a national manner because it is so subjective.

I wanted to flush out the subjective label to my earlier statement, regarding the use of the word home.

Two points here.

The unborn child is by definition innocent, if the unborn child is not innocent, then none of us can possibly be innocent as well. This is not a subjective belief anymore than having people guilty of a crime is subjective.

Secondly, one of the definitions of the word home, according to Merriam-Webster:

4(a) : a place of origin

In this sense, the womb is the home of the unborn child, the place where the child originates.

Is it right to remove someone from their own place of origin? Even if the person who owns the place has not consented? How can the unborn child trespass if it never crosses the property line? If not, then the unborn child has a prima facie right to remain in the womb which trumps the privacy rights of the mother.

It's not really a sacrifice if she has no choice but to do it. A sacrafice on her part would infer that she actually chose to sacrifice something.

Even with a law forbidding abortion, women will still be able to obtain illegal abortions. Therefore, a woman will still have the choice between having the abortion or keeping the child.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Can you provide evidence that post-rape abotions tend to be late abortions? Of course not. The only reason you WANT them to be late abortions is so that you can drag in the "baby was cut into pieces" scenario.

Jack,
Don't put words in my mouth please. Nowhere do I say that abortions due to rape should be late-term abortions, rather I expect most abortions from rape to be performed sometime between 8-13 weeks.

These were your actual words:

What about the torture of the unborn child? Are they not hacked to pieces with such brutality and pain, that some abortion doctors recommend anaestetics?

...At 8 weeks? Dismemberment in the womb is a procedure for partial-birth abortions.

The BRAIN is very primitive at this stage. By this argument, it is immoral to poison cockroaches.

Cockroaches are not going to become sentient. An unborn child will. That's the difference.

We were discussing the ability of the fetus to "feel pain". Therefore "going to become sentient" is irrelevant. Please try to focus!

By exactly the same argument, any woman who ventures outside and then gets raped in a park is responsible for her actions and therefore "deserves it".

Your words, not mine. Where have I said that women who are raped deserved their fate? The 'ongoing torture' as you put it would not have happened unless there was a rapist. The woman who is raped is not responsible for her rape because she had no choice in the matter.

Again, your focus is drifting. This was a discussion of abortion after contraceptive failure. You HAVE repeatedly stated that a woman who has sex must be held responsible for the consequences if contraception fails. I was drawing a parallel with rape due to "insufficient precautions". It is inconsistent to blame a responsible woman who uses a contraceptive, but not one who gets raped. My view is that neither should be blamed.

OF COURSE suicide rates are higher among women who abort! You're comparing women with unwanted preganancies with women who don't have any problems!

If pregnancy is torture, why are the suicide rates for women who bear their child to term not higher than for an abortion? If abortion will end her torture, why do women feel more distressed after the abortion than before? Also, many unplanned pregnancies are carried to term. How do you figure that these mothers do not have problems of their own?

Again you are being deliberately obtuse (or losing your focus again).

The "torture" refers to rapes extended to nine months by being forced to carry the rapist's child. This psychological torture is entirely absent in a normal pregnancy.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that "women feel more distressed after the abortion than before". You are comparing distressed women (all women who SEEK abortions are distressed) with normal women.

And "unplanned pregnancies" ARE more traumatic than normal ones, but LESS traumatic than those due to RAPE.

and an accusation that "vulnerable women" are being coerced into having abortions they don't really want.

My verb was counselled, not coerced. Read it again.

You said they're "vulnerable", and being counselled "to have an abortion". This implies that they would not otherwise have chosen to have one: that they're being persuaded (or bullied) into it.

We don't have specific statistics for the suicide rate of women who are raped and abort, and for women who are raped and choose to keep their baby.

However, we do have statistics for the overall cases, pregnancies that result in abortions, and pregnancies that result in births.

Apples and oranges. They are not even remotely comparable. You have NO statitistics comparing rape victims who choose abortions with rape victims forcibly prevented from getting an abortion.

Abortion will not 'unrape' the woman, it will not release her from the pain and suffering of the rape anymore than smashing another's car will repair your smashed up car. It might vent anger, but it won't heal scars.

It will release her from the greater horror and psychological torture of being forced to carry a hated parasite within her body for nine months.

But excellent points nonetheless. I believe that if one is asking a women who was raped to carry her child to term, that you have to do whatever it takes to help her.
She is making a sacrifice for her own child so that he might have a life to enjoy, and should be encouraged to do so. There already are a great deal of people who volunteer in crisis pregnancy centres designed to help these women.

Now you're using words such as "asking" and "encouraging". Before, you were talking about FORCING, by banning all abortions. Are you beginning to relent?

Without these structures, then I do believe these women would be more likely to commit suicide, if the law were to change.

Thank you. This is my point: that forcing women to carry the children of rape is torture, hence the suicide risk.

Even with a law forbidding abortion, women will still be able to obtain illegal abortions. Therefore, a woman will still have the choice between having the abortion or keeping the child.

Why introduce a law if you expect people to break it at will?

And this assumes that the woman will be able to FIND a backstreet abortionist (they would be hunted criminals, right?), and that she would survive the procedure.

Much better to avoid the need for backstreet abortionists by keeping abortion legal.

[Ben Kenobi]

At 8 weeks? Dismemberment in the womb is a procedure for partial-birth abortions.

Dismemberment occurs during Dilation and Curettage as well as Dilation and Evacuation. Partial birth abortion is just more obvious due to the size of the unborn child.
It's still dismemberment even if a vacuum rips up the child.

We were discussing the ability of the fetus to "feel pain". Therefore "going to become sentient" is irrelevant.

I answered this question already! The fetus can feel pain sometime between 8-13 weeks, as the neurological structures are formed in the brain.

However, the ability to feel pain has nothing to do with personhood as you pointed out, because a cockroach can feel pain, while an unborn child before 8 weeks cannot.

The important point is the ability of the unborn child to attain sentience, the inherent capacity formed at conception. Any clearer now?

It is inconsistent to blame a responsible woman who uses a contraceptive, but not one who gets raped.

No, again for reasons I already stated. If the father is responsible for a child conceived from contraceptive failure, then so is the mother. The difference between rape and consensual sex is the consent, which means both parties accept the consequences of their actions, including pregnancy.

This psychological torture is entirely absent in a normal pregnancy.

Define normal pregnancy. What about post-partum depression? While a pregnancy due to rape may create greater psychological stress, than an unplanned pregnancy, we don't have any supporting data.

Jack, would you support abortion only in the case of rape?

Now you're using words such as "asking" and "encouraging". Before, you were talking about FORCING, by banning all abortions. Are you beginning to relent?

Why introduce a law if you expect people to break it at will?

To answer the first point, I must first answer the
second. Just because someone breaks a law, does that render the law invalid? NO. If so, we should no longer have laws against murder because some people choose to murder others. The same applies to abortion. Many women will be dissuaded from having abortions if abortion were illegal. This is why we want to change the law.

While the stick may work, it is better to encourage women, to make it easy for them to have children and to avoid the financial problems associated with an unplanned pregnancy. In this sense, I mean to encourage, and to ask women to carry their child to term.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Dismemberment occurs during Dilation and Curettage as well as Dilation and Evacuation. Partial birth abortion is just more obvious due to the size of the unborn child.
It's still dismemberment even if a vacuum rips up the child.

You used the phrase "hacked to pieces".

The important point is the ability of the unborn child to attain sentience, the inherent capacity formed at conception. Any clearer now?

Obviously we don't agree that this point is of paramount importance. But it's not relevant to a discussion about a young fetus "feeling pain" anyhow. The sentience it HAS is what's relevant.

It is inconsistent to blame a responsible woman who uses a contraceptive, but not one who gets raped.

No, again for reasons I already stated. If the father is responsible for a child conceived from contraceptive failure, then so is the mother. The difference between rape and consensual sex is the consent, which means both parties accept the consequences of their actions, including pregnancy.

The "responsibility of the father" is to share the financial cost. Personally, I don't believe that in cases where a woman has lied about being on the Pill, a father should be held responsible.

But, in the case of genuine contraceptive failure, neither parent consented to the pregnancy. Both parents consented to an activity which involved a small RISK of pregnancy, just as any woman who goes to a nightclub consents to a small RISK of attracting the attention of a rapist. But accepting the RISK does not mean that the woman has consented either to rape OR to pregnancy.

This psychological torture is entirely absent in a normal pregnancy.

Define normal pregnancy. What about post-partum depression? While a pregnancy due to rape may create greater psychological stress, than an unplanned pregnancy, we don't have any supporting data.

This is ludicrous!

If you won't accept that pregnancy due to rape is psychologically different from a normal pregnancy, then should I assume that you don't think rape is different from normal sex either?

Jack, would you support abortion only in the case of rape?

I wholeheartedly support abortion in the case of rape and contraceptive failure. Such abortions should be as early as possible. I also support the "morning-after" pill even if the woman was simply negligent. Abortion becomes harder to defend as the weeks pass: partly due to the increasing sentience of the fetus, and partly due to the increasingly valid argument that the woman has consented to the pregnancy by not having it done earlier.

Third-trimester abortions should occur only if the mother's health is in danger. It is possible that this might apply in rape cases, if the victim was so traumatized that she didn't come forward before, and is becoming increasingly hysterical and suicidal as the birth approaches.

Now you're using words such as "asking" and "encouraging". Before, you were talking about FORCING, by banning all abortions. Are you beginning to relent?

quote:
Why introduce a law if you expect people to break it at will?

To answer the first point, I must first answer the
second. Just because someone breaks a law, does that render the law invalid? NO. If so, we should no longer have laws against murder because some people choose to murder others. The same applies to abortion. Many women will be dissuaded from having abortions if abortion were illegal. This is why we want to change the law.

You said that women would still have the choice to have an abortion, even if it's illegal. Yet you intend to DENY her that choice. This is hypocrisy.

I do NOT wish to allow people the CHOICE to commit murder.

That's the difference. You are seeking to introduce a law that you HOPE will not be effective in its stated aim. You apparently WANT rape victims to become criminals if they seek abortions.

And your use of the word "encourage" and "ask" to describe FORCING unwilling women is a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I wanted to flush out the subjective label to my earlier statement, regarding the use of the word home.

The unborn child is by definition innocent, if the unborn child is not innocent, then none of us can possibly be innocent as well. This is not a subjective belief anymore than having people guilty of a crime is subjective.

And innocence is irrelevant. The implied contract that is created by sex is absent during a rape. Innocence has nothing to do with it.

Is it right to remove someone from their own place of origin? Even if the person who owns the place has not consented?

Yes. If the mother does not wish the pregnancy, and accepted no responsibility by being raped, the mother is not obligated to keep the baby or top bring it to term.

How can the unborn child trespass if it never crosses the property line? If not, then the unborn child has a prima facie right to remain in the womb which trumps the privacy rights of the mother.

The right in this case is not prima facie. Trespassing entails the presence on the property of the mother; the way it got there is irrelevant. As I have demonstrated with the violinist case, rights to life never trump property and body rights. There is no exception, least of all here.

Even with a law forbidding abortion, women will still be able to obtain illegal abortions. Therefore, a woman will still have the choice between having the abortion or keeping the child.

A law should not be passed if you expect and even abide people breaking it. If the choice still exists even after abortion is banned, and you tolerate that, why even make it illegal at all?

[Cyclotron]

Sorry, dp.

[Ben Kenobi]

@Cyclotron, Jack

What is the purpose of Law? Should laws reflect the morality of the majority, or the morality of the few? Is law a democracy where people get to vote which laws they want and which laws they don't?

I feel this is the definition of the tyranny of a majority, where the majority can redefine the law as it sees fit.

Hitler changed the laws of Germany so that a persecuted minority, the Jews, no longer counted.
Today, rather than the Jews, we have altered personhood to exclude the unborn. For the benefit of the many, we sacrifice the few.

The same right that protects us from harm, from being killed is our right to life. I fear that by stripping the unborn child of a right to life, we strip away our own protection. By restoring the right to life of the unborn, we renew the respect deserved to all people.

Yes, some will not like the change. Some will even break the law. But many will follow the law, and be grateful. Do I encourage people to break the law when I acknowledge that some will? That's reality for you.

Jack,
the unborn child is hacked to pieces in any abortion.

If you won't accept that pregnancy due to rape is psychologically different from a normal pregnancy, then should I assume that you don't think rape is different from normal sex either?

Jack, all pregnancies have their own problems for the mother to deal with, even when wanted. It is a major life change for the mother. Your dichotomy of wanted/unwanted is false, as many happy pregnant women did not plan their pregnancies.

As for rape, I agree that this is worse, and that the mother needs more help to get through her pregnancy.

The sentience it HAS is what's relevant.

What about someone in a coma, Jack? Do I have a right to kill him because he is no longer as sentient as you or I?

Both parents consented to an activity which involved a small RISK of pregnancy, just as any woman who goes to a nightclub consents to a small RISK of attracting the attention of a rapist.

False analogy!
Risk of attracting a rapist does not equal risk of rape.
Unless you are saying that the woman is somehow responsible for her rape.

Abortion becomes harder to defend as the weeks pass: partly due to the increasing sentience of the fetus, and partly due to the increasingly valid argument that the woman has consented to the pregnancy by not having it done earlier.

Then where do you draw the line, Jack? At what point does abortion become wrong? How much sentience does one need to be a person?

Cyclotron:

Trespassing entails the presence on the property of the mother; the way it got there is irrelevant.

Not quite. It is irrelevant if you cross the line in a truck, or a car, or on your feet. However, it is not irrelevant if the child never crosses the line in the first place. How can one trespass in one's own home?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
@Cyclotron, Jack

What is the purpose of Law? Should laws reflect the morality of the majority, or the morality of the few? Is law a democracy where people get to vote which laws they want and which laws they don't...

The purpose of the law doesn't really matter.

I am basing my claims off of our current legal precepts, and that doesn't even include Roe v. Wade. All my arguments are based off our currently accepted standards of property law and the right to life.

Your analogy to hitler is astounding to me, mostly because I have never said fetuses were anyting less than human. You asked me earlier to say whether they were human or not, and I told you they were. I am not treating them as sub-human; on the contrary I am examining their human rights as if they were an adult. That's why I brought up the violinist analogy; you can see just by that that I was equating their rights with that of an adult human. Your comparison between my arguments and the marginalization and brutalization of jews in Germany is untrue, unfair, and frankly a bit sick.

Not quite. It is irrelevant if you cross the line in a truck, or a car, or on your feet. However, it is not irrelevant if the child never crosses the line in the first place. How can one trespass in one's own home?

A home belongs to the owner. The body thus belongs to the mother. If somebody is in or using her body that she never consented to, that being is trespassing and the mother has a full right to remove it. I am saying that the presence, not the action of getting there, is what makes the child a trespasser.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cyclotron, I tried to show why I feel the law should be changed since both you and Jack had a number of problems with my earlier statement. I hope that I have made myself more clearer.

I did not want to compare your arguments with the Nazi ones, okay? I know your position is different, and I tried to explain mine better.

Cyclotron, only about 1-2 percent of all abortions performed are due to the rape of the mother. Would you agree to changing the law to ban all other abortions?

How would you deal with tandee's objection, where the woman would be subjected to a proof of rape, ie, she would have to prove she was raped in order to get an abortion. I think there are some serious evidentiary problems she hit upon.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Hitler changed the laws of Germany so that a persecuted minority, the Jews, no longer counted.
Today, rather than the Jews, we have altered personhood to exclude the unborn. For the benefit of the many, we sacrifice the few.

Hitler's denial of rights to the Jews was based upon racism. Whereas my denial of "personhood" to a young fetus is based upon the lack of a brain. It is objectively true that a newly-concieved fetus has no brain. It is not simply a matter of opinion.

Yes, some will not like the change. Some will even break the law. But many will follow the law, and be grateful. Do I encourage people to break the law when I acknowledge that some will? That's reality for you.

Again this bizarre doublethink. Rape victims compelled by law to bear the child of their rapists will NOT be "grateful"! You apparently have no idea what it must be like to be raped, or to be made pregnant by a rapist, and absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for rape victims.

Obviously, I have no direct experience either. But I know someone who WAS concieved by rape: he is pro-choice. In the case of conception due to rape, it's virtually inevitable that those forced to confront the reality of the situation will be pro-choice, even if their own choice was to keep the child.

Stop deluding yourself. Stop pretending that forcing women to undergo this torture is "encouragement", and that they will be "grateful" for it.

You need to face reality.

Jack,
the unborn child is hacked to pieces in any abortion.

Including the expulsion of a glob of undifferentiated cells?

Even if the glob of cells falls apart, I would not call this "hacked to pieces".

If you won't accept that pregnancy due to rape is psychologically different from a normal pregnancy, then should I assume that you don't think rape is different from normal sex either?

Jack, all pregnancies have their own problems for the mother to deal with, even when wanted. It is a major life change for the mother. Your dichotomy of wanted/unwanted is false, as many happy pregnant women did not plan their pregnancies.

As for rape, I agree that this is worse, and that the mother needs more help to get through her pregnancy.

You have little interest in HELPING her. You are determined to TORTURE her. Sure, you'd support counselling, but the central fact remains: the torture takes priority and will go ahead regardless of the victim's wishes, even if it pushes her to suicide.

The sentience it HAS is what's relevant.

What about someone in a coma, Jack? Do I have a right to kill him because he is no longer as sentient as you or I?

You are losing your focus again. We were discussing your objection to abortion because the fetus would feel pain.

I have no objection to killing a person in a coma which is based on the victim's ability to feel pain, when the comatose person is incapable of feeling pain. That would be absurd.

Both parents consented to an activity which involved a small RISK of pregnancy, just as any woman who goes to a nightclub consents to a small RISK of attracting the attention of a rapist.

False analogy!
Risk of attracting a rapist does not equal risk of rape.
Unless you are saying that the woman is somehow responsible for her rape.

Of course the risk of attracting a rapist increases the risk of rape!

The analogy holds. The woman decided to accept a small increase in risk, but YOU are the only one attempting to equate "acceptance of risk" with "full consent". But you're only doing it with contraceptive failure, not rape. That is hypocritical and inconsistent.

In both cases, my view is consistent: the woman DID NOT CONSENT to either rape or pregnancy. You wish to apply a double standard. You refuse to accept that a woman who takes a contraceptive is taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy and cannot be blamed if the precautions fail: yet you accept that rape victims shouldn't be blamed even if there was a course of action available to them that would have prevented the rape (like not going out).

Then where do you draw the line, Jack? At what point does abortion become wrong? How much sentience does one need to be a person?

It's a sliding scale. But I can be quite sure that personhood does not exist when the brain does not exist. That is why I favor early abortions and cannot comprehend the objections to the "morning-after" pill, which should be readily available everywhere.

How would you deal with tandee's objection, where the woman would be subjected to a proof of rape, ie, she would have to prove she was raped in order to get an abortion. I think there are some serious evidentiary problems she hit upon.

This is not a problem if she can simply get an abortion anyhow. The morning-after pill should be made available to any pregnant woman who needs it, no questions asked.

[Urban Ranger]

Wow, this is still raging on?

Originally posted by obiwan18
What is the purpose of Law? Should laws reflect the morality of the majority, or the morality of the few?

Law should have nothing to do with morality. Laws are there to protect certain contractual rights and obligations of its citizens, to define the role of the government, various organisations, and so forth. You cannot mingle law with morality, full stop.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Today, rather than the Jews, we have altered personhood to exclude the unborn. For the benefit of the many, we sacrifice the few.

How do you define personhoold? Waxing on about something is one thing, giving it solid content is quite another.

[Az]

Law should have nothing to do with morality. Laws are there to protect certain contractual rights and obligations of its citizens, to define the role of the government, various organisations, and so forth. You cannot mingle law with morality, full stop.

it depends on how you define morality.

[Urban Ranger]

What about a "code of conduct?"

[Az]

so how morality is disconnected from law?

you cannot murder.
you cannot rape.

etc. etc. etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is objectively true that a newly-concieved fetus has no brain.

True.

It's a sliding scale. But I can be quite sure that personhood does not exist when the brain does not exist.

Jack, you evaded my question. Please try harder. When does personhood begin?

Hitler's denial of rights to the Jews was based upon racism. Whereas my denial of "personhood" to a young fetus is based upon the lack of a brain.

Your argument is from form and function. Because the newly-conceived child lacks the same abilities or shape that you do, therefore they are not persons.

The extension is this:

If one bases personhood on how well one's brain functions, then why isn't Stephen Hawking more of a person than you are?

absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for rape victims.

Jack, read some of my earlier posts. Abortion will not help the rape victims overcome their rape. Some women feel the child is the only good thing to come from their rape. We should help the woman in whatever she needs to keep her child. All these I have said.

What do I mean by 'whatever she needs?'
I'm talking finding a place for her to stay, financial support, the whole nine yards. I may not have the resources personally, (being a student and all,) but I do know people who will help, and will refer the woman to them.

But I know someone who WAS concieved by rape: he is pro-choice.

Irrelevant to your point at hand. What about the mother who bore him? Why isn't she pro-choice?

Including the expulsion of a glob of undifferentiated cells?

At 8 weeks? No. I'll refer you to a website with pictures of unborn children at 8 weeks. If you disagree with these pictures, find a textbook on embryoscopy. They will show the same kinds of pictures.

http://www.standupgirl.com/inside/em...opy/index.html

I have no objection to killing a person in a coma which is based on the victim's ability to feel pain, when the comatose person is incapable of feeling pain. That would be absurd.

May I kill you when you are under anaestetia?

yet you accept that rape victims shouldn't be blamed even if there was a course of action available to them that would have prevented the rape (like not going out).

So a rape victim is guilty for her rape because she went out to a bar?

How do you define personhood?

Urban Ranger,
I define personhood as the inherent capacity to attain sentience. This occurs at conception, because an individual human person is formed with a genetic structure differing from the parents. Having a human genetic structure is what allows the zygote to develop and eventually attain sentience.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
so how morality is disconnected from law?

you cannot murder.
you cannot rape.

etc. etc. etc.

One aspect of the law is to protect individual citizens, so a person who violates the rights of another citizen will be punished. On the other hand, laws should not care about a person's conduct if he does not cause harm to another person or the society as a whole, while a code of conduct will regulate this area also. So, laws should not care if a person consumes alcohol, but a morality may forbid against it.

Now, if the laws is to uphold morality, in a society where abortion is deemed immoral it will be outlawed. However, if Law is detached from morality, abortion will remain legal as long as doing so does not harm anybody else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I define personhood as the inherent capacity to attain sentience. This occurs at conception, because an individual human person is formed with a genetic structure differing from the parents. Having a human genetic structure is what allows the zygote to develop and eventually attain sentience.

Then you will have to outlaw any acts that can damage body cells. They have a theoretical inherent ability to become other humans.

[Jack the Bodiless]

It's a sliding scale. But I can be quite sure that personhood does not exist when the brain does not exist.

Jack, you evaded my question. Please try harder. When does personhood begin?

How is this an evasion? There is no single moment when personhood begins. There is no precise answer to your question!

But it obviously hasn't begun when there is no brain yet. I can be quite sure about that.

Hitler's denial of rights to the Jews was based upon racism. Whereas my denial of "personhood" to a young fetus is based upon the lack of a brain.

Your argument is from form and function. Because the newly-conceived child lacks the same abilities or shape that you do, therefore they are not persons.

What has shape got to do with this?

An intelligent, purple, five-legged spheroid from Alpha Centauri is a PERSON from Alpha Centauri!

There is only one criterion that matters. SENTIENCE.

The extension is this:

If one bases personhood on how well one's brain functions, then why isn't Stephen Hawking more of a person than you are?

We are both sentient. Therefore we are both persons.

This is relevant how, exactly?

absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for rape victims.

Jack, read some of my earlier posts. Abortion will not help the rape victims overcome their rape. Some women feel the child is the only good thing to come from their rape. We should help the woman in whatever she needs to keep her child. All these I have said.

Abortion will help many women avoid something that is worse than rape itself. I still get the impression that you do not understand WHY rape is wrong, and why what you're proposing is WORSE than rape.

You will not HELP the woman in "whatever she needs" if what she NEEDS is an abortion.

But I know someone who WAS concieved by rape: he is pro-choice.

Irrelevant to your point at hand. What about the mother who bore him? Why isn't she pro-choice?

Whatever gave you the notion that she ISN'T pro-choice?

Millions of women who CHOOSE to proceed with unwanted pregnancies are pro-choice.

Including the expulsion of a glob of undifferentiated cells?

At 8 weeks? No. I'll refer you to a website with pictures of unborn children at 8 weeks. If you disagree with these pictures, find a textbook on embryoscopy. They will show the same kinds of pictures.

You wish to ban abortion at ANY stage, right? Including a glob of undifferentiated cells.

And I know very well how TINY a fetus is at 8 weeks. And how rudimentary the brain is at that stage.

I have no objection to killing a person in a coma which is based on the victim's ability to feel pain, when the comatose person is incapable of feeling pain. That would be absurd.

May I kill you when you are under anaestetia?

Again you are being deliberately obtuse. I have re-highlighted the relevant parts in bold. Now re-read what I said.

My objection to you killing me when I'm unconscious isn't based on my ability to feel pain.

yet you accept that rape victims shouldn't be blamed even if there was a course of action available to them that would have prevented the rape (like not going out).

So a rape victim is guilty for her rape because she went out to a bar?

Don't be such an idiot.

It is not ME who seeks to blame innocent women for their misfortunes.

It is YOU who are doing this. You are BLAMING women for something they DID NOT CONSENT TO and took all reasonable precautions to prevent.

What YOU are doing (in blaming women for contraceptive failure) is directly equivalent to saying that a rape victim is guilty for her rape because she went out to a bar.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I suggest you carry out a little exercise. Think of answers to the following question:

WHY IS RAPE WRONG?

Now look at those answers, and see if the same answers apply to:

1. Forcibly preventing rape victims from seeking abortion.

2. Forcing women to endure pregnancy in the event of contraceptive failure.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is this an evasion? There is no single moment when personhood begins. There is no precise answer to your question!

Jack, call me when you find a real answer to my question. This renders all of your previous points moot.
When does a child attain sentience? Why do you declare a standard that you cannot define?

You cannot determine whether abortion is right or wrong unless you first set a concrete definition of personhood.

Abortion in the case of rape is only justifiable once you establish a standard of personhood. IF the unborn child is a person, then it is a worse crime to kill the child than to carry the child to term. Lives in this case trump feelings.

But it obviously hasn't begun when there is no brain yet. I can be quite sure about that.

No brain yet. At what point may we kill the child? 1 day before she develops her brain to the standard of sentience you set? This is why my example is valid. Why are you just as much of a person as Stephen Hawking despite the fact that he has a much better currently functioning brain than you do? His brain likely has more neural connections, and is hence, more developed than yours.

As for your 'exercise'.

Rape is wrong because of the lack of consent. The woman has not consented to the assault on her person, which therefore is wrong. If the woman does consent, then the same act changes from an assault, to consensual sex.

Millions of women who CHOOSE to proceed with unwanted pregnancies are pro-choice.

Let's see. Pro-choicers have the option of abortion available to them. If pregnancy is such a torture as you claim, why don't these women have abortions? Why do they keep the child if the child is so much of a burden, that to kill, relieves the mother?

And how rudimentary the brain is at that stage.

When is the brain properly formed to accede to your standards?

What YOU are doing (in blaming women for contraceptive failure) is directly equivalent to saying that a rape victim is guilty for her rape because she went out to a bar.

The woman is NOT guilty for her rape. Where have I said she was?

'is directly equivalent'
NO. Consensual sex is not rape, last time I checked.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then you will have to outlaw any acts that can damage body cells. They have a theoretical inherent ability to become other humans.

Couple points, Urban Ranger.

I'm not entirely sure of your reference here.
Do you mean adult stem cells?

Adult stem cells cannot form another zygote, although they can theoretically become any other cell in the body.

Sorry for being somewhat obtuse.