Mississippi Supreme Court: Fetus a person

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
the whole abortion issue is thus very inconsistant... its not just extreme pro-lifers... the majority of americans are very inconsistant in this issue... its the result of the tug of war between compassion for the woman who doesn't want or can't afford a child right now and compassion for the unborn life...

I don't think the issue is inconsistent - only the people.

Either a fetus is human or it is not. If it is, then it is entitled to the full rights of any other person. Including the right not to be killed (in this case, via abortion). If it is not human, then it does not get any human rights.

It may be pragmatic to strike a balance in policy terms - but that does not affect the moral issue. You see, I have a consistent position - fetuses aren't persons and so do not have the rights of a person. Full stop. Case closed. People don't feel comfortable about abortion on demand? I don't feel comfortable allowing Christians on the bench. So what? People have a right to their religion and not to be discriminated on that account.

BTW, a "pragmatist" is a person who is blind to their own ideology.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


I don't think the issue is inconsistent - only the people.

Either a fetus is human or it is not. If it is, then it is entitled to the full rights of any other person. Including the right not to be killed (in this case, via abortion). If it is not human, then it does not get any human rights.

It may be pragmatic to strike a balance in policy terms - but that does not affect the moral issue. You see, I have a consistent position - fetuses aren't persons and so do not have the rights of a person. Full stop. Case closed. People don't feel comfortable about abortion on demand? I don't feel comfortable allowing Christians on the bench. So what? People have a right to their religion and not to be discriminated on that account.

BTW, a "pragmatist" is a person who is blind to their own ideology.

well a pragmatist could merely be a person who compromises. but its also possible that when two moral concerns collide that some form of compromise actually comes internally. and that is not neccessary for one to always absolutely win.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon


well a pragmatist could merely be a person who compromises. but its also possible that when two moral concerns collide that some form of compromise actually comes internally. and that is not neccessary for one to always absolutely win.

Compromise is possible in the same way moral inconsistency is possible. You can be morally inconsistent - it's called hypocricy. Likewise, one can compromise and thus enter a state of moral inconsistency - it's called expediency. But neither hypocricy nor expediency is a particulary desirable state.

What I mean on the issue of pragmatism is just this - "pragmatism" usually refers (in common talk) to getting from point A to point B. But why point B? This is an issue of value preferences - which in turn is ideological. For example, I may want to get from the status quo to a state where wealth is equally distributed. I may find many pragmatic ways to get to an equal distribution, but the value placed on an equal distribution is a second-order value judgement.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


Compromise is possible in the same way moral inconsistency is possible. You can be morally inconsistent - it's called hypocricy. Likewise, one can compromise and thus enter a state of moral inconsistency - it's called expediency. But neither hypocricy nor expediency is a particulary desirable state.

What I mean on the issue of pragmatism is just this - "pragmatism" usually refers (in common talk) to getting from point A to point B. But why point B? This is an issue of value preferences - which in turn is ideological. For example, I may want to get from the status quo to a state where wealth is equally distributed. I may find many pragmatic ways to get to an equal distribution, but the value placed on an equal distribution is a second-order value judgement.

it is neither expedience nor hypocrisy. unfortunately some ppl feel it is both undesirable for the mother to be forced to carry something insider her she does not want AND that it is undesirable to kill a child. it is easy to color the world black and white and then yell at it. it is something else to navigate it w/ wisdom and compassion.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon


it is neither expedience nor hypocrisy. unfortunately some ppl feel it is both undesirable for the mother to be forced to carry something insider her she does not want AND that it is undesirable to kill a child. it is easy to color the world black and white and then yell at it. it is something else to navigate it w/ wisdom and compassion.

Fine - but you have committed yourself here to the position that (1) a fetus is human, but (2) the rights of the fetus must be balanced against the rights of the mother. What you probably want to say at this point is that because the woman did not consent to the sex (i.e. rape) that resulted in the fetus the right of the woman outweighs the right of the fetus. That is, choice is the determining factor as to whether the fetus's right to life outweights the womans right to her reproductive capacity.

That is a consistent position, but a weaker position than saying the right to life is absolute (in which case the argument is only about whether the fetus is human). After all, once you institute a balancing test of rights you open the possibility of expanded abortion.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


Fine - but you have committed yourself here to the position that (1) a fetus is human, but (2) the rights of the fetus must be balanced against the rights of the mother. What you probably want to say at this point is that because the woman did not consent to the sex (i.e. rape) that resulted in the fetus the right of the woman outweighs the right of the fetus. That is, choice is the determining factor as to whether the fetus's right to life outweights the womans right to her reproductive capacity.

That is a consistent position, but a weaker position than saying the right to life is absolute (in which case the argument is only about whether the fetus is human). After all, once you institute a balancing test of rights you open the possibility of expanded abortion.

its only weakness is the person holding it does not scream as loud as the other side.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



With a foetus or infant, you get into a big issue of whether junior would have grown up to be the future CEO of Intel, or if he would have spent his days bagging groceries at the local Piggly-Wiggly.

Or grown up to be Ted Bundy, the Green River Killer or Saddam Hussein...

[Verto]

Or Beethoven, whose mother was considering abortion.

[TCO]

You have the same issue of what would he grow up to be with any child. Not just feti.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Verto
Or Beethoven, whose mother was considering abortion.

You have got far more serial killers than master composers, so your odds aren't good.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is what always confuses me about pro-lifers/anti-choicers - why is there an exception for rape and incest. If a fetus is a person, and therefore abortion is murder - why does the origin of a fetus matter?

Well said, however, most prolifers do not allow for a rape/incest exception for the exact reason you cite.

You have got far more serial killers than master composers, so your odds aren't good.

Urban Ranger:

But how can you tell which will be which? It's like trying to time when a stock will rise or fall. In the long run, it's better to hold and find out what you get.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
But how can you tell which will be which?

We can't tell individually, that's why we have statistics.

Originally posted by obiwan18
It's like trying to time when a stock will rise or fall. In the long run, it's better to hold and find out what you get.

Think of all the dead people...

[TCO]

Let's kill the 5-year olds. You don't know how they will turn out either. No big loss.

[Panzer32]

This is what always confuses me about pro-lifers/anti-choicers - why is there an exception for rape and incest. If a fetus is a person, and therefore abortion is murder - why does the origin of a fetus matter? After all, if a three year-old is the product of rape we would condemn a mother who killed the three year-old.

I am against abortion and I make no exceptions for rape and incest

[blackice]

At least someone got it right.

Cheers to the decission!

About time wade vs roe was put to bed, so to speak...

I understand the womans rights to her body no biggy, but does that give them the right to kill unborn humans...Not in my opinion, especially when the father wanted the baby and should have had some rights, say to the life or death of his unborn child.

After all half the house was hers or more, half the pension or more, half the income or more, half the belongings or more, but the father has no right to his unborn or born... Balance is lacking I can not wait to see how this unfolds.

[notyoueither]

Please feel free to hold your breath.

[chequita guevara]

When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery.

What makes a human being special is its consciousness. A fetus has no conscieouness and therefore is not human. It only has potential to become human, just like sperm and eggs, and in the age of cloning, stem cells (including adult stem cells). Granted, left alone, it is much more likely to become human (though it is not guaranteed). Nonetheless, it has not yet achieved personhood. It is human tissue, not a human being.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is human tissue, not a human being.

The law says something different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery.

As is forcing someone (and removing choice) to pay for a child they did not want, when the other party has a choice not to support if she wishes.

I hope you are consistent .

[Imran Siddiqui]

About time wade vs roe was put to bed, so to speak...

I realize you are Canadian, but you do realize that a state Supreme Court cannot override the US Supreme Court, no matter how strongly it argues?

If Mississippi tries to ban abortion based on this ruling (which has nothing, really, to do with abortion), it'll be struck down so fast, it'll make the state spin.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery.

As is forcing someone (and removing choice) to pay for a child they did not want, when the other party has a choice not to support if she wishes.

It depends. If the man has previously stated he did not want a child and took precautions so that he would not father a child (i.e., provides his own birth control), then yes, I think he should not have to support mother or child.

If, however, he was a selfish ***** who refused to wear a condom because he doesn't like the way it feels and instead relied on (or demanded) the woman to either provide protection for herself or assumed she would get an abortion, well, then, too bad. Also, if he didn't make things clear beforehand; don't be careless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If, however, he was a selfish ***** who refused to wear a condom because he doesn't like the way it feels and instead relied on (or demanded) the woman to either provide protection for herself or assumed she would get an abortion, well, then, too bad.

Does this mean if the woman was selfish and refused to use birth control and instead relied on the male to use condoms, and when he didn't have any went on with it anyway, that she shouldn't have the right to an abortion?



The woman has (and SHOULD have) a choice, no matter how careful or irresponsible she was, to support a child or not. The man should have the same choice (before the birth of the child.. or before the last day it is legally permissible to get an abortion, of course).

[ajbera]

I tend to feel the fetus's viability outside the mother plays a part in determining it's 'personhood.' A 60 day old fetus cannot possibly survive independent of the mother, thus it can be terminated. A 180 day old infant can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb given medical care, so should not be terminated. This period of time will change as technology improves. I started a thread with two ectogenesis articles that detailed artificial wombs that should be a few pages back... neat stuff.

And although I feel it could be potentially be an infringement on personal liberty to force someone to carry a fetus to term (plenty of arguments both for and against this position), I don't believe that a woman has the right to demand the death of a fetus just because it's 'hers'... if it can be removed and nurtured without her, no need to kill it.

So, I'm grudgingly pro-choice, but feel it's best done as early as possible. 2nd trimester abortions really bother me, 3rd are out unless mother is threatened/fetus is a mutie. I don't necessarily agree with the rape provision (why compound the tragedy of rape with the tragedy of abortion?), and think it's just a horrible thing even when completely justified.

In a perfect world, abortions would be freely available to all women without restriction, but nobody would ever need (or want) to get one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The woman has (and SHOULD have) a choice,

Actually, she doesn't. She has to take care of the child regardless, unless she puts it up for adoption. I'm pretty sure that society would take a very dim view of her simply walking away from the child after giving birth, like any man is capable of doing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, she doesn't.

Because abortion doesn't exist .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, she doesn't. She has to take care of the child regardless, unless she puts it up for adoption. I'm pretty sure that society would take a very dim view of her simply walking away from the child after giving birth, like any man is capable of doing.

Horse Hockey!

[Ramo]

Crappy decision. A fetus is a person, or a nonperson, regardless of whether the mother consents to killing it.

[DinoDoc]

Could you be a little more confusing Ramo?

[Urban Ranger]

What he was saying is a fetus is either a person or a nonperson. This status does not change regardless of whether the mother is going to abort it or not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What he was saying is a fetus is either a person or a nonperson.

Do you mean to say neither? Because that would be a little less confusing.