Abortion from societies stand point

[lightgigantic]

You are comparing a woman's right to her pregnancy or an abortion with inserting heroin up one's vagina?

and you are comparing a life form to a medical condition

Interesting...

Do you think a woman's reproductive organs are owned by the State or by "society"?

not at all ... add a life form or 200 grams of heroin to the circumstances and you have a slightly different scenario though ...

How many wombs do you claim proprerty rights to, personally, LG?

Already explained how these so called "property rights" are vetoed when certain thresholds of behavior are violated

How about the contents of your gonads? Do we all own them collectively as well?

Depends if I use them in the smuggling of heroin or otherwise being criminal with them to impeach on the rights of others, doesn't it ...

[Balerion]

I have to wonder what would become of LG if the shrug emoticon were disabled for a day...

[lightgigantic]

I have to wonder what would become of LG if the shrug emoticon were disabled for a day...

[Kumar]

No conclusion - just a suggested approach to examining the problem.

Simple: if it suggest "cause and effect"?

[Bells]

and you are comparing a life form to a medical condition

Quite an analogy.

Many life forms are deemed medical conditions.

not at all ... add a life form or 200 grams of heroin to the circumstances and you have a slightly different scenario though ...

Because women regularly insert 200 grams of heroin into their uterus?

Women abort their fertilised eggs all the time, usually without even knowing they had a "life form" inside of them. Should the State become involved and demand the detrius from every single menstrual cycle to make sure the woman is not murdering a "life form" every month?

After all, if this is the standard you are going with, you should accept the consequences.

Already explained how these so called "property rights" are vetoed when certain thresholds of behavior are violated

You are the one who declared property rights on wombs LG. Not I.

Depends if I use them in the smuggling of heroin or otherwise being criminal with them to impeach on the rights of others, doesn't it ...

Which others?

Which "others" rights are being criminally "impeached"? Yours?

Also, you should educate yourself on women's reproductive systems. I have never ever heard of any woman forcing heroin or any other drugs past her closed cervix and into her uterus to smuggle said drugs through customs.

So you should just stop with that trolling method right now.

[lightgigantic]

Quite an analogy.

Many life forms are deemed medical conditions.

when one is talking about the scope for pregnancy it tends to land a more modest number of possibilities ...

Because women regularly insert 200 grams of heroin into their uterus?

If they did, do you think they would enjoy a liberal treatment of the law?

Women abort their fertilised eggs all the time, usually without even knowing they had a "life form" inside of them.

people die in car crashes all the time too ... that doesn't make engineering car crashes for others to die in somehow justifiable

Should the State become involved and demand the detrius from every single menstrual cycle to make sure the woman is not murdering a "life form" every month?

at the moment we are just discussing ethics of it (since such discussions tend to also illuminate solutions ) ....

After all, if this is the standard you are going with, you should accept the consequences.

.... unless you think that the impossibility of establishing ultrasounds at all places that sell cigarettes somehow renders all discussions against pregnant mums chain smoking null and void.

You are the one who declared property rights on wombs LG. Not I.

No I didn't.

What I did say however was " commonly what a person does with their body is a societal concern regardless whether one is a woman or not (and particularly if what one does with one's body affects the body and property of others)" ... which you interpreted as a property rights issue.
I am simply explaining how there societal/legal limitations with what one can do with one's body ... even if one wants to view the body as a subset of legal property

Which others?

Which "others" rights are being criminally "impeached"? Yours?

Not unless I am the one with the prospect of being dependent on your obligation

Also, you should educate yourself on women's reproductive systems. I have never ever heard of any woman forcing heroin or any other drugs past her closed cervix and into her uterus to smuggle said drugs through customs.

If it was as you say, that its unethical for laws to breach any issue of a women's reproductive system, I am sure drug runners would be on to it in a jiffy

So you should just stop with that trolling method right now.

Its quite simple - you can't argue individual rights if the individual is impeaching on the rights of others.

The only way around it is to use the language of unconsciousness to designate the victim to a non-person status or the procedure necessarily vague , of which there is a strong historical precedent. Its the only way to maintain a defense of the indefensible.

[Kumar]

Truth should lie in balance not in excess on either side.

[Bells]

If they did, do you think they would enjoy a liberal treatment of the law?

Of course not.

But you seem a tad obsessed with women apparently inserting heroin into their own uterus. Is there something you wish to share?

people die in car crashes all the time too ... that doesn't make engineering car crashes for others to die in somehow justifiable

Because that would be murder.

Howerver a woman passing a fertilised egg naturally in her menstrual cycle or having an abortion is not murder.

at the moment we are just discussing ethics of it (since such discussions tend to also illuminate solutions ) ....

The ethics is simple.

Keep your nose out of the uterus of women.

.... unless you think that the impossibility of establishing ultrasounds at all places that sell cigarettes somehow renders all discussions against pregnant mums chain smoking null and void.

I forget.

You are only interested in making sure she keeps it in there..

No I didn't.

What I did say however was " commonly what a person does with their body is a societal concern regardless whether one is a woman or not (and particularly if what one does with one's body affects the body and property of others)" ... which you interpreted as a property rights issue.
I am simply explaining how there societal/legal limitations with what one can do with one's body ... even if one wants to view the body as a subset of legal property

By applying a ridiculous and impossible illegal act - ie - women inserting heroin into their uterus..

And you expect to be taken seriously because....?

Not unless I am the one with the prospect of being dependent on your obligation

If you cannot define the "others", why are you here?

After all, if you wish to give a fertilised egg recognition as a "person", then there are obligations to that - such as women having to have their menstrual cycles monitored by the State to make sure they aren't committing murder. And the notion that women are somehow mere incubators for society..

If it was as you say, that its unethical for laws to breach any issue of a women's reproductive system, I am sure drug runners would be on to it in a jiffy

I would dearly love to see any drug runner inserting heroin into a uterus.

But you also forget, heroin is not a part of the woman's body.

Take a while to think about it. I am sure it will come to you with time. I would also suggest you look up the female reproductive system and see why your little obsession with heroin being carried in the uterus of drug mules is virtually impossible.

Its quite simple - you can't argue individual rights if the individual is impeaching on the rights of others.

Who are you attributing the rights to though? Who are the "others"?

The only way around it is to use the language of unconsciousness to designate the victim to a non-person status or the procedure necessarily vague , of which there is a strong historical precedent. Its the only way to maintain a defense of the indefensible.

If you wish to give fertilsed eggs "personhood" and the rights that accompany them, then I'd suggest you get your microscope ready to check every single woman's menstrual detrius to make sure she's not committing murder..

[lightgigantic]

Of course not.

But you seem a tad obsessed with women apparently inserting heroin into their own uterus. Is there something you wish to share?

surely they could just retort "keep your laws off my body" and whatnot, no?

Because that would be murder.

funny how imitating things that occur naturally warrants an entirely different perspective ..

Howerver a woman passing a fertilised egg naturally in her menstrual cycle or having an abortion is not murder.

whatever it may be, one is a natural occurrence and the other involves wantonly neglecting the rights one is obliged to protect

The ethics is simple.

Keep your nose out of the uterus of women.

actually its even simpler - protect and prevent individuals from being killed



I

forget.

You are only interested in making sure she keeps it in there..

hey put up or shut up!!

Unless you have some bright idea how one can install ultrasounds at cigarette stores and the judicial powers to persecute and apprehend offenders, all discussion of pregnant mums chain smoking and what not is just not on the cards.
Next thing you know you will be saying that its not a good idea for pregnant mums to binge drink!!
The nerve ....

By applying a ridiculous and impossible illegal act - ie - women inserting heroin into their uterus..

And you expect to be taken seriously because....?

the reason it is so ridiculous is because anyone with half a brain (including drug mules) understands that the moment one is violating the rights of others, one gets nailed - there is no "special part" of the anatomy that stands outside this norm ("No your honour, it wasn't me, it was my reproductive system ... so keep your laws off my body"). In fact its relatively common for women to use their reproductive system as an aid in smuggling

If you cannot define the "others", why are you here?

lol
I think even you would agree (in your saner moments) that regardless whether one goes to get an abortion or not, the problem is not one of defining the situation .... I mean its not like you can be half pregnant, is it?

After all, if you wish to give a fertilised egg recognition as a "person", then there are obligations to that - such as women having to have their menstrual cycles monitored by the State to make sure they aren't committing murder. And the notion that women are somehow mere incubators for society..

I guess you also find it difficult to engage in discussion about chain smoking and drinking while pregnant ... since these too are plagued by identical problems ( btw, sorry to hear that you have such a dismal view of parenthood )

I would dearly love to see any drug runner inserting heroin into a uterus.

Why?
Do you think they would get a milder treatment from the law if they did?

But you also forget, heroin is not a part of the woman's body.

as if an unborn child is

Take a while to think about it. I am sure it will come to you with time. I would also suggest you look up the female reproductive system and see why your little obsession with heroin being carried in the uterus of drug mules is virtually impossible.

plenty of room in a women's reproductive system .... a fact many female smugglers bank on ...
Feel free to post any complete diagram of a female reproductive system and I can show you where

Who are you attributing the rights to though? Who are the "others"?

if you can conceive of the "other' that an abortion is taking out of the picture, the real question is why are you asking these things?

If you wish to give fertilsed eggs "personhood" and the rights that accompany them, then I'd suggest you get your microscope ready to check every single woman's menstrual detrius to make sure she's not committing murder..

similarly don't you dare pass judgments on smoking binge drinking mums unless you are prepared to outfit every liquor store with a portable ultrasound ....

[visceral_instinct]

So OP, you think it's okay to force a woman, against her will, to remain pregnant and give birth.

Got any reasoning to justify that?

[visceral_instinct]

Abortion is something the mother should be able to decide because it is her own body that she is doing something to. The age is another problem and anyone under 18 should have their parents consent if they only want to abort because they don't want the child and not for medical problems.

So now you think it's okay that a parent can force their daughter, against their will, to stay pregnant and give birth.

[spidergoat]

Because the contents of a woman's uterus and what a woman does with her body should be a public electoral issue for men to vote on?

Any public health issue can become a political issue, so yes.

[visceral_instinct]

Any public health issue can become a political issue, so yes.

It shouldn't be up for political debate whether or not a woman should be forced to donate her own body as a life support system.

[spidergoat]

Lots of things shouldn't be up for debate but are. Climate change, for instance.

[visceral_instinct]

Yeah it's sick.

We didn't ask to be born with uteri. Why should we be stuck having less than the full human rights? Men, and women who are not pregnant, are not expected to donate their bodies...

[Bells]

surely they could just retort "keep your laws off my body" and whatnot, no?

It isn't about that though, is it?

It is about respecting a woman's right to choose whether she has a child or not. And in that regard, men should not be debating this politically while excluding women from said debate. It does affect women because it is happening inside their bodies.

So you can stop with the impossible premise that women are inserting heroin into their uterus as drug mules.

funny how imitating things that occur naturally warrants an entirely different perspective ..

Banning abortions and declaring that life begins at conceptions runs the risk - and believe me, you just know there will be some far right religious arsehat who will raise suspicion - that women who miscarry could find themselves being investigated and possibly charged with murder. In fact, that is already happening in some States of the US.

Maybe you should start to view women as free indivdual human beings with autonomy over their own bodies instead of just viewing them as incubators?

""

whatever it may be, one is a natural occurrence and the other involves wantonly neglecting the rights one is obliged to protect

Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

A 6 week old embryo, for example, should not have more rights than the mother carrying it. If the mother falls ill, or aborts it naturally, or decides to terminate the pregnancy, her rights over her body trumps said embryo's rights over hers.

actually its even simpler - protect and prevent individuals from being killed

Embryo's aren't "individuals".

They are just.. embryo's..

hey put up or shut up!!

Unless you have some bright idea how one can install ultrasounds at cigarette stores and the judicial powers to persecute and apprehend offenders, all discussion of pregnant mums chain smoking and what not is just not on the cards.
Next thing you know you will be saying that its not a good idea for pregnant mums to binge drink!!
The nerve ....

If a woman wants to smoke and/or drink, that should be her choice.

Did you know that in some 38 or so States, if a woman miscarries and they find out she was a drug addict, consumed anything that could be deemed harmful to the foetus or even if in the midst of depression she may have been suffering she tries to commit suicide, she can be charged with murder? Even if they have no proof that what she consumed had anything to do with the miscarriage..

This is where you are headed... Where women and teenage who miscarry are being investigated for murder and being charged with it.

Does this make you happy?

the reason it is so ridiculous is because anyone with half a brain (including drug mules) understands that the moment one is violating the rights of others, one gets nailed - there is no "special part" of the anatomy that stands outside this norm ("No your honour, it wasn't me, it was my reproductive system ... so keep your laws off my body"). In fact its relatively common for women to use their reproductive system as an aid in smuggling

By applying a fallacy?

Really?

This is the kind of thing you resort to?

While there is no special part of the anatomy that "stands outside the norm", no woman should ever be forced, against her will, to carry a child to term.

Do you understand that?

Or do you think that women should be forced by the State and society to act as human incubators against their will? A yes or no will suffice.

I think even you would agree (in your saner moments) that regardless whether one goes to get an abortion or not, the problem is not one of defining the situation .... I mean its not like you can be half pregnant, is it?

The question remains the same.

And thank you for making spurious comments on my sanity. How very Christian of you. I am sure your Jesus and God would approve.

If you define an embryo or foetus as an "individual", then that carries a lot more responsibility and you do end up going to places where women will end up having their menstrual periods examined to make sure she's not pregnant. You would have to force women to never drink, smoke or consume any foods or beverage which could be harmful to a possible pregnancy.

I guess you also find it difficult to engage in discussion about chain smoking and drinking while pregnant ... since these too are plagued by identical problems ( btw, sorry to hear that you have such a dismal view of parenthood )

What are my view on "parenthood" LG?

Perhaps you can enlighten me?

As for chainsmoking and drinking while pregnant? It isn't any of my business. Are you going to try and force your views on women about that as well now? You know, since you are trying to force your views on their uterus?

Why?
Do you think they would get a milder treatment from the law if they did?

Nope.

Why do you think I would want that?

as if an unborn child is

Ah, the crux...

An unborn child cannot survive outside of her womb until it reaches the point of viability. Attempting to give the "unborn child" more rights over her body than she does is immoral and denies her her human rights and autonomy. She has a right to choose what she does with her body.

Or do you think women should be forced to remain pregnant against their wishes?

plenty of room in a women's reproductive system .... a fact many female smugglers bank on ...
Feel free to post any complete diagram of a female reproductive system and I can show you where

You really don't understand how the uterus and cervix works, do you?

Do you even understand how a "child" remains in said uterus?

if you can conceive of the "other' that an abortion is taking out of the picture, the real question is why are you asking these things?

And if you are attributing rights to the "other" who may be say, 8 weeks, and giving it more rights than the mother does, one has to question your views of women.

similarly don't you dare pass judgments on smoking binge drinking mums unless you are prepared to outfit every liquor store with a portable ultrasound ....

I may not think it's good personally, but I am not about to force my beliefs on her and what she does.

It is her business.

Understand now?

[Orleander]

I try to stay away from these abortion threads. Its never about the baby. Its always about the morality of the mom.

[lightgigantic]

So OP, you think it's okay to force a woman, against her will, to remain pregnant and give birth.

Got any reasoning to justify that?

So you think its okay to force someone to die?
Got any reasoning to justify that?

[Bells]

So you think its okay to force someone to die?
Got any reasoning to justify that?

You do realise that by banning abortions, and some are pushing to ban it even in cases of medical emergencies, you are possibly forcing women to die?

Or when women miscarry and there is still a foetal heartbeat and the hospitals are refusing to perform the necessary surgery and she turns septic from the miscarriage, that she can be forced to die? Yes?

So why is it acceptable to force the mother to die but not the embryo or foetus she is carrying? Why does its rights trump hers?

Why should it?

Why should an unborn child's rights trump that of the mother's right to her life and her body? What reasoning is there to force women to remain pregnant against their will and her consent and then force them to risk their health during the birth?

[lightgigantic]

It isn't about that though, is it?

It is about respecting a woman's right to choose whether she has a child or not. And in that regard, men should not be debating this politically while excluding women from said debate. It does affect women because it is happening inside their bodies.

So you can stop with the impossible premise that women are inserting heroin into their uterus as drug mules.

actually its about pointing out how there is no "special part" of the anatomy that lends the moral high ground to moral transgression.

Banning abortions and declaring that life begins at conceptions runs the risk - and believe me, you just know there will be some far right religious arsehat who will raise suspicion - that women who miscarry could find themselves being investigated and possibly charged with murder. In fact, that is already happening in some States of the US.

Maybe you should start to view women as free indivdual human beings with autonomy over their own bodies instead of just viewing them as incubators?

ahem.

Just in brief, there is always a tension within societies (according to their capacities) whether something should be legally punishable or whether it should be pressured as unsavory simply due to societal pressure.

Constantly ranting about the impossibility of making sense of a flurry of murder charges is simply illustrating your shallow view of the subject
""

Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

Sure it does.

If all abortion was natural there would be no discussions about the moral implications of establishing clinics for that express purpose

A 6 week old embryo, for example, should not have more rights than the mother carrying it. If the mother falls ill, or aborts it naturally, or decides to terminate the pregnancy, her rights over her body trumps said embryo's rights over hers.

I'm not sure how having the right to live can be dressed up as having "more rights" - its kind of the platform where rights begin

Embryo's aren't "individuals".

They are just.. embryo's..

same language of unconsciousness used yesteryear to designate blacks as "niggas" or burning villages, destroying crops and machine gunning livestock as "pacification and relocation" .

The defense of the indefensible has a history of requiring this

If a woman wants to smoke and/or drink, that should be her choice.

even if it awards lifelong defects to the child?

Did you know that in some 38 or so States, if a woman miscarries and they find out she was a drug addict, consumed anything that could be deemed harmful to the foetus or even if in the midst of depression she may have been suffering she tries to commit suicide, she can be charged with murder? Even if they have no proof that what she consumed had anything to do with the miscarriage..

This is where you are headed... Where women and teenage who miscarry are being investigated for murder and being charged with it.

On the contrary, the only place I am headed at the moment is discussion about obligations of parenthood. Its kind of ridiculous for you suggest that, legally speaking, there is only one singular choice of implication as a consequence of such discussions

Does this make you happy?

Do children born with birth defects as a consequence of substance abuse of their mother make you happy?

By applying a fallacy?

Not really.
Its a common body cavity used by drug mules ... although admittedly they don't do it with the expectation of getting a lighter sentence if busted.

Really?

This is the kind of thing you resort to?

While there is no special part of the anatomy that "stands outside the norm", no woman should ever be forced, against her will, to carry a child to term.

which stands opposed to "no person should be given a death sentence on the unsubstantial whim of another"

Do you understand that?

What I do understand is that you conveniently dress an unborn child in political language so you can live with yourself. Its often the case that users of the language of unconsciousness are hiding the true nature of their ideas even from themselves

Or do you think that women should be forced by the State and society to act as human incubators against their will? A yes or no will suffice.

Do you think individuals should die because there is inconvenience in being an "incubator"?

The question remains the same.

Your inability to face the scenario head on remains the same

And thank you for making spurious comments on my sanity. How very Christian of you. I am sure your Jesus and God would approve.

Gee sorry I forgot.
Only atheists are allowed to be snide smart asses

If you define an embryo or foetus as an "individual", then that carries a lot more responsibility and you do end up going to places where women will end up having their menstrual periods examined to make sure she's not pregnant.You would have to force women to never drink, smoke or consume any foods or beverage which could be harmful to a possible pregnancy.

So in your deep rumination of the issue, you can not think of any group of individuals (aside from the police) who may have an interest in advocating a stance against smoking etc while pregnant?

What are my view on "parenthood" LG?
Perhaps you can enlighten me?

If you can't think of any designation aside from "forced incubator" its pretty clear ...

As for chainsmoking and drinking while pregnant? It isn't any of my business. Are you going to try and force your views on women about that as well now? You know, since you are trying to force your views on their uterus?

So if a relative was chain smoking while pregnant you would simply smile benignly with-holding your POV?

Ah, the crux...

An unborn child cannot survive outside of her womb until it reaches the point of viability.

they also cannot survive for the first few years too

Attempting to give the "unborn child" more rights over her body than she does is immoral and denies her her human rights and autonomy. She has a right to choose what she does with her body.

No more than the rights a newborn child places on the mother ... in fact a new born child deprives a mother of more rights than it did when it was in the womb

Or do you think women should be forced to remain pregnant against their wishes?

Do you think a child should have the option of being killed any time the mother decides the rights she is sacrificing to maintain it (on account of its inability to maintain an independent life) are too much (technically that means one could possibly have an "abortion" any time till about their 26th birthday)

You really don't understand how the uterus and cervix works, do you?

Do you even understand how a "child" remains in said uterus?

Just post a complete diagram of the female reproductive system and all will be revealed

And if you are attributing rights to the "other" who may be say, 8 weeks, and giving it more rights than the mother does, one has to question your views of women.

once again, you certainly have a skewed view of things if you think granting someone the right to live warrants more rights than what they deserve

I may not think it's good personally, but I am not about to force my beliefs on her and what she does.

It is her business.

Understand now?

Too late.
You already passed judgement.

Now the only (apparently) logical thing to do is establish ultrasounds everywhere ... or do you think I am jumping the gun with a wild interpretation of the legal consequences of your views?