got to laugh at EF doing an ethics round up on various takes on a situation and Bells chiming in "how dare you!".
Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Bells
Staff member
EF advocates that women are secondary, merely breeders and he even advocated letting or forcing treatment on a woman even if it makes her die quicker. A woman losing her rights to her own body means nothing. She is merely a vessel, an incubator. She can be forced to have her body cut open without consent, to being lied to about her own or her foetus' medical condition if her doctor fears she may have an abortion to treat herself or if the foetus has a genetic or other abnormality because said doctor has a personal or religious pro-life views.. Apparently making women die quicker and lying to women about their health or their foetus' health is ethical.. Only a misogynist would get a laugh out of EF's post.
Of course you would get a laugh out of it.:shrug:
You're just a blue pill kind of guy, aren't you?
Ok explain to me how I'm advocating this triage model?
I was speaking of hypotheticals, if the fetus was viable, if she could have had an abortion long before late stage pregnancy, etc, etc, I was not advocating for the hospital actions only stating that if viability is used as the standard to start granting fetuses rights, then only if the fetus is viable would we need to consider mother rights verse the fetuses rights.
I do plan to, my professor want to get me work there, perhaps as a way to make up for all the Chinese grad students he bring over here, but first I need my PhD.
Anyways I was not advocating for force abortions only stating that it could become morally acceptable if we grant the state rights to determine eugenic fitness of a fetus, one of the weakness of bring in eugenic standard as exceptions "viability is null if it is deformed or defective in *some* way"
The real life scenario you present is not an ethical problem, the answer is as obvious as you state it is, do as the women wants, but then what are we debating? Nothing. Rather the answer becomes an ethical problem if we change it and ask "what if the fetus was viable". For real life scenario generally 3rd term abortions can count, were the fetus is viable but for some reason the mother wants an abortion now. I would assume that reason is usually a horrible defect of the fetus was just found (eugenic rational) or the mother life was found too threatened, the latter of which would via the viability model mean extracting the fetus then and there and see if it can survive. I will point out again the viability model has no allowance for forcing a mother to remain pregnant, it is either extract the fetus now or do what ever the mother wishes, those are the only options it presents. The viability model does open up for child endangerment and abuse charges to be applicable for a mother with a viable fetus.
Well if the mother was terminally Ill and the fetus was viable, extraction would the the only option (assuming the mother does not want her child to live but wants a few more weeks of precious life instead, honestly that level of selfishness is outlandish but what ever), Since her life is suffering emanate doom, it honestly can't be worth much, and most people would agree to save their progeny over themselves in such a state, heck most people would usually agree to die for their children in any scenario. This raises the question what can a person get with there final wishes, can they get to bury one of their children with them just because the thought will comfort them in there final weeks/hours?
There are ethical consequences for the moral stances you make, the consequences are valid for this thread topic, for they determine when and where an abortion would be morally acceptable, I simply do not see how that is trolling.
Well then just state you agree a mother can abort a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, even moments before it is born, and then we will be done. Just have the courage to stand by your convictions, say something like "Sure if a mother wants to kill her fetus moments before it born, how ever unlikely that is, I find it morally acceptable because it not yet outside her body and thus has no rights."
Ok, but what if it was viable? It still not born, but if it was viable, what then? Sure if it in-viable then it has no rights and it totally up to the mother what to do with it.
Again your misconstruing my arguments, making inflammatory straw men out of them while slandering me at the same time. As I state before I don't believe a fetus is a person, I believe abort should be legal and at a women discretion, I don't see women as breeders and frankly I would rather they not breed unless they really can take care of and raise a productive member of society. The mother rights would usually be paramount to me, unless the fetus was viable and further gestation in the mother was more of a risk then immediately c-section to the fetus or the mother, even then the chances of the fetus living a long a productive happy life need to be consider against it being a deadbeat born of a convict, of course all of that are hypotheticals, because I explore the ethical consequences of my morals.
I address your real-life scenario repeatedly and state it does not interfere with the viability model, but I state that if it was different then the viability model would apparently be unacceptable to you. I state that the "dry foot" model makes viability null and not valid for arguing against fetal personhood because it would not matter if the fetus was viable or not, as long as it has not left the women body yet the mothers rights would always be paramount, the fetus would have no rights, until it left the women body. That like any model the dry foot model has certain ethical consequences, do you accept those consequences? If so then congratulations you have a consistent ethical framework, just never speak of viability again as part of your ethics, as it means nothing to your ethics.
They would only be allowed in certain situations, such as if I had a viable fetus, they (I assume the goverment, not aliens, for what ethics covers them I have not a clue, clearly anal fixation is a prime ethic for them I guess) could remove the fetus against my will if it was found I was committing some form of sever child endangerment or abuse. Just as a born child could be removed from my custody, put in foster care and I imprison, if say I was using the child's room to make meth, or was found violently insane, etc, etc. of course the risk to my self and to the child of what I was doing would needs to be consider the against the health risks of removing the fetus to my self and the fetus. So I would have to be doing some pretty fucky nasty stuff. Alternatively the state could charge me with child abuse-endangerment for what I did, and put the baby up for foster care after it was born, and put me in prison.
So your saying for now and forever that could never ever happen, is that what your saying? Frankly the dry foot model leaves that option available even if it was to never ever to happen, anyways 3rd trimester abortions might as well count unless your saying that once natural labor begins the fetus is now has rights, not artificial stimulated labor since technically that is used for some types of 3rd term abortions. If we count artificial stimulated labor then technically it has happen where a mother demanded and did kill her fetus while she was in 'labor', in real life, many many times. So I can simplify the question: "No matter how rare, are third trimester abortions, at the demand of the mother for any reason what sever ever, no matter how late termed, acceptable to you?" If you answer yes have a consistent ethical framework, I assume based on the 'dry foot' model, and certainly if you continue to use viability in your arguments against personhood your being inconsistent with your ethics. If you say no then your ethical framework is inconsistent and ad hoc, it would not be much better then the pro-lifer's stance of "god says so!"
Oh so then you don't believe in the dry-foot model, ok then your ethical framework is inconsistent and ad hoc well don't feel so bad, I may self am still trying to develop a consistent ethical framework on this issue.
Again if the fetus is viable, and the viability model is in effect and your found incompetent in someway, the goverment may have that right. That is the consequence of the viability model. Alternatively the goverment could just charge you with child endangerment/abuse instead, how about that? Make it so the goverment can't force you the have a c-section but can charge you regardless of the outcome with a one of those crimes? Yes I think that would be an acceptable compromise.
And that unfortunate, the alternative would be to make all drugs legal and treatment perfectly voluntary, would you agree with that, I'm inclined to agree with that. Again what you describe is a problem cause by drug criminalization not abortion.
I would love programs that offer drug addict free, unarrested care and treatment, yes, that would be great.
It not a either or, free, unarrested care can be provided to those that voluntarily check in and thus caught by police can be forced against their wills into prison. The ethics are the same male or female, pregnant or not. I would think such a set up of 'bad cop, good doc' would be very effective at getting drug addicts, pregnant or not, into voluntary treatment as a safe haven from the 'fuze'.
If I was a rapist, yes I think that would be alright by my ethics, I think mandatory castration is not simply a good quick punishment but also should reduce recidivism very well. Likewise pregnant criminal women, could have there viable fetuses removed by force, or be forced to abort unviable fetuses, so as not to bring more wards of the state into existence that will likely live miserable lives.
I have been rolling around this idea for population control: One child per person (2 per couple) next child you have to pay a yearly tax or one of you needs to get a free tube tying (be them Fallopian or Vas deferens), so that basically 3 children per couple plus free permanent birth control. Of course the rich get to have as many kids as they can pay for.
Anyways no I don't believe in the eugenics standards, but if we are to allow exceptions for deformed fetus to have no rights but normal ones to have rights we are adding in eugenics and making more nazi like applications of eugenics closer to ethically acceptable.
No no you claimed it becoming more common, prove it.
Roe vs Wade allows state interpretation of viability to makes 3rd term abortion illegal at the state level. so no it not simply "I" alone.
And again if you have no stake in viability then why even mention it? It means nothing to you, it does not matter to you if the fetus is viable or not if you follow the 'dry foot' model, for if it is viable it still has no rights what so ever via that 'dry foot' model. So far all I've seen is you say it could never happen, that the reasoning for a women to abort a late term fetus must be valid, like what? that its deformed, well that is eugenic rational, that could lead to some nasty ethical consequences. Anyways it must be valid somehow you claim, ok what other validations are there? and why is not for what ever reason, a valid reason? By the "dry-foot" model any reason and no reason at all is a valid reason. But that will never happen you say, so? It does not change that in the hypothetical that it does it would be acceptable by the 'dry foot' model. No, no you know the minds of every single women on this plant, now and forever, it could never happen.
"Happily?" you can read my mind now too? No I would think having to make such decisions would be heart breakingly painful, but because I was speaking of a hypothetical I can be unemotional about it. I might as well say your "happy" with killing a fetus at a mother discretion.
You call me a troll, a lair, claim I ignore everything you say, yet you say stuff like this? How hypocritical can you be?
You really need to calm down, this is nothing more then a discussion on a internet forum, I'm not actually condemning anyone here. If you disagree with someone, calling them names is not going to help, and technical if I was a troll I would be getting off on these comment of yours.
Again I was speaking of hypothetical. What I was saying is if you want to include deformates as reason for abortion then your adding eugenics standards to your reasoning and open up a Pandora's box of nazi horrors.
Is that a threat?
How are these concepts equivalent? Don't both men and women have to support their children? So that is a bilateral responsibilty and ethical question, but hmmm... Only women can actually get pregnant and have an abortion so... Tell me again why you think your question is valid?
I can't speak for Bells but it would seem that the pro-life side attempts to enforce their concept of morality on women in many cases not even involving a viable fetus. These cases should not raise any ethical considerations if I'm perceiving your position properly. Is that your stance? I apologise if you already answered this, but is abortion a valid choice to you that should be legally and readily available in all cases where the foetus is not viable, for whatever reason and at whatever point in time? Have you thought these things through?
Amended to add: Upon review of your posts I feel compelled to ask what definition of viability are you using, exactly?
Yes, although only if the matrix was a place were everyone was happy.
I never said anything like that. Again a women is free to have an abortion, but if we start granting right at viability, (and when I mean we, I mean legally in USA law via Roe vs Wade) a women in 3rd trimester pregnancy could be made accountable for child endangerment/abuse, and she could be made to have a c-section against her will. Now could the goverment lie to her, no that would be immoral, could she have an third term abortion if the fetus is deformed or defective, well sure but we need to consider all the other eugenic possibilities applying that standard does, such as allow the goverment to force abortions in the case of deformations and defects or criminality of the mother.
Really? Do tell us exactly how many "more weeks of precious life" have to be on the table before your position swings away from where "extraction would the the only option"? Five? Twenty? Fifty? It would seem if you follow your logic to its conclusion no mother would have enough "precious life" left to outweigh that of a newborn. So, in any and all cases where "extraction" would cause the mother's death the foetus's rights triumph right? How's that consistent ethical framework of yours holding up here?
One to Keep an Eye On
Just So We're Clear ....
Renee Schoof and John Frank report, for the News & Observer:
For the moment, Hagan seems to be letting the issue come to her in its own time; given that her voting record is clear, and Republicans are certain to put it before the people, anyway, she doesn't even list her abortion policy on the campaign website. A local Democratic consultant noted that the incumbent senator would more likely not wave the issue in front of voters in general, but surrogates and advocates will be able to use the abortion issue to motivate voters. Kenneth Fernandez of Elon University, the poll director, also cautioned even that approach carries its own risks: "Any strategy by Republicans or Democrats to use abortion to rally the troops could always backfire and rally more opposition troops".
The lines on this one are pretty clearly drawn. There are five Republicans in on this one. What are the chances that at least one of them will try to outflank the others on this issue, and thus force the debate?
And here's the thing: Say what you want about liberals, but even in Oklahoma the judges will stand for the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States, it should be noted, declined to hear the appeal:
Are they going to have this fight in North Carolina? Only the five Republican candidates can answer that question. Any respectable campaign team would keep their candidate miles away from this one. Right now, playing by the numbers is the safe thing to do.
____________________
Notes:
Schoof, Renee and John Frank. "Abortion question divides North Carolina’s U.S. Senate candidates". News & Observer. January 31, 2014. NewsObserver.com. February 4, 2014. http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/31/3581067/abortion-question-divides-north.html
Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. "In re Initiative Petition No. 395, State Question No. 761". April 30, 2012. The Oklahoma State Courts Network. February 4, 2014. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=465514
Baker, Sam. "Supreme Court turns down appeal in Okla. 'personhood' case". The Hill. October 29, 2012. TheHill.com. February 4, 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/264605-supreme-court-denies-appeal-in-abortion-case
Just So We're Clear ....
Renee Schoof and John Frank report, for the News & Observer:
North Carolina’s fiercely competitive U.S. Senate race could turn on one of the most divisive issues in politics.
The abortion question shows up the stark contrast between incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan and her GOP challengers.
Hagan supports abortion rights for women. The leading GOP contenders want to make abortion illegal. Three of the Republican candidates go even further, arguing to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The only exception, they say, is to protect the mother’s life.
The Republican candidates also say the state has the authority to ban contraceptives and favor a “personhood” constitutional amendment that would grant legal protections to a fertilized human egg and possibly ban some forms of birth control.
The abortion question shows up the stark contrast between incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan and her GOP challengers.
Hagan supports abortion rights for women. The leading GOP contenders want to make abortion illegal. Three of the Republican candidates go even further, arguing to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The only exception, they say, is to protect the mother’s life.
The Republican candidates also say the state has the authority to ban contraceptives and favor a “personhood” constitutional amendment that would grant legal protections to a fertilized human egg and possibly ban some forms of birth control.
For the moment, Hagan seems to be letting the issue come to her in its own time; given that her voting record is clear, and Republicans are certain to put it before the people, anyway, she doesn't even list her abortion policy on the campaign website. A local Democratic consultant noted that the incumbent senator would more likely not wave the issue in front of voters in general, but surrogates and advocates will be able to use the abortion issue to motivate voters. Kenneth Fernandez of Elon University, the poll director, also cautioned even that approach carries its own risks: "Any strategy by Republicans or Democrats to use abortion to rally the troops could always backfire and rally more opposition troops".
The lines on this one are pretty clearly drawn. There are five Republicans in on this one. What are the chances that at least one of them will try to outflank the others on this issue, and thus force the debate?
And here's the thing: Say what you want about liberals, but even in Oklahoma the judges will stand for the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States, it should be noted, declined to hear the appeal:
By rejecting the appeal, the justices left in place a lower court's decision that found a personhood measure in Oklahoma would violate the Constitution.
Only four of the nine justices have to agree for the court to take a case, so Monday's rejection could be a sign that the court's four conservative justices aren't interested in wading into personhood, a concept that has divided opponents of abortion rights.
Personhood proposals aim to redefine "life" under state laws and constitutions to say that life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized. Although that would prohibit abortion, it could also restrict women's access to in vitro fertilization and some forms of contraception.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked a personhood amendment from the state's ballot, saying it would be unconstitutional. In the ruling, the Oklahoma justices said states must abide by the Supreme Court's ruling that abortion is legal.
Personhood has gotten a lot of attention, but has fared poorly in the states thus far. Proposals have been rejected from several state ballots, and have failed when they've made it to a vote. Voters in conservative Mississippi rejected a personhood measure last year after then-Gov. Haley Barbour (R) voiced his reservations about the measure's scope.
(Baker)
Only four of the nine justices have to agree for the court to take a case, so Monday's rejection could be a sign that the court's four conservative justices aren't interested in wading into personhood, a concept that has divided opponents of abortion rights.
Personhood proposals aim to redefine "life" under state laws and constitutions to say that life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized. Although that would prohibit abortion, it could also restrict women's access to in vitro fertilization and some forms of contraception.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked a personhood amendment from the state's ballot, saying it would be unconstitutional. In the ruling, the Oklahoma justices said states must abide by the Supreme Court's ruling that abortion is legal.
Personhood has gotten a lot of attention, but has fared poorly in the states thus far. Proposals have been rejected from several state ballots, and have failed when they've made it to a vote. Voters in conservative Mississippi rejected a personhood measure last year after then-Gov. Haley Barbour (R) voiced his reservations about the measure's scope.
(Baker)
Are they going to have this fight in North Carolina? Only the five Republican candidates can answer that question. Any respectable campaign team would keep their candidate miles away from this one. Right now, playing by the numbers is the safe thing to do.
____________________
Notes:
Schoof, Renee and John Frank. "Abortion question divides North Carolina’s U.S. Senate candidates". News & Observer. January 31, 2014. NewsObserver.com. February 4, 2014. http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/31/3581067/abortion-question-divides-north.html
Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. "In re Initiative Petition No. 395, State Question No. 761". April 30, 2012. The Oklahoma State Courts Network. February 4, 2014. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=465514
Baker, Sam. "Supreme Court turns down appeal in Okla. 'personhood' case". The Hill. October 29, 2012. TheHill.com. February 4, 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/264605-supreme-court-denies-appeal-in-abortion-case
Don't be silly, if the mother is going to live long enough to give birth then there would be no issue, so we are talking about emanate death for the mother in 3 months or less. If the mother is going to die giving birth or before giving birth, then the fetus must be extracted, whether it survives or not, whether the mother would die or not from the procedure. Now in the unlikely situation that the mother says she wants it to die with her and the fetus is viable, then by the viability model it could be removed against her wishes.
I am getting a laugh out of your information assimilation issues. Your hysteria is so advanced that you have completely lost the plot who or what you're arguing with.
:shrug:
Bells
Staff member
The man is advocating that murdering women is acceptable if the foetus is viable and the mother is ill.
Is this acceptable in your triage framework? Does your triage framework actively encourage and support murdering women to get their babies out? I mean, she's going to die soon anyway, just speed it up along because she is not worthy of consideration. And her wanting to live? Well, that's just selfish. Why should a woman's desire to live be paramount? Why should her life be paramount? She has no rights in the eyes of misogynists like you, so setting about to kill her faster is acceptable.
We aren't even talking about bodily integrity and women's legal rights to an abortion anymore. We are talking about pro-lifer's now actively advocating murdering sick and dying women to get to their babies.
This is what he is advocating, not to mention a Nazi type eugenics program and this is what you are tacitly supporting and getting amusement out of.
actually he is talking about a myriad of ethical problems that surround having a consistent ethical stance by doing some lateral thinking on several hypothetical scenarios .... the precise sort of cerebral activity and introspection conspicuous by its absence in the minds of hysterical fanatics.
Last edited:
I'm not advocating any such thing, only saying by the viability model then yes a viable fetus could be removed by force from a terminally ill women, if you don't want to use that model or would like to add other standards to prevent that situation from occurring, that up to you. For example we could say "no forced surgeries", problem fixed.
actually he is talking about a myriad of ethical problems that surround having a consistent ethical stance by doing some lateral thinking on several hypothetical scenarios .... the precise sort of cerebral activity and introspection conspicuous by its absence in the minds of hysterical fanatics.
yeah that what I been saying Bells, again not saying we should do those things, only saying those become morally acceptable if we make certain ethical stances, again if you make the 'dry foot' model yours then viability has no meaning to you, a fetus has no rights what so ever to you until the moment it leaves the women.
And another thing we would also need to remove the possibility of crimes committed against a pregnant women having added charges because the fetus is completely valueless by the 'dry foot' model, if we on the other hand grant a hostess of a fetus special rights to kill that would break the principle of equality, so via the 'dry foot' model the murder of a pregnant women, no matter how viable the fetus was is still the murder of only one person. Injuries to a pregnant women that causes a miscarriage is only chargeable for harm done to the women. To your benefit though a pregnant women, no matter how pregnant, could legally do anything to her body (that she could have done when not pregnant) via the 'dry foot' model, no matter how damaging it is to the fetus. For example the mothers of babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome can't be charged for any crime.
Bells
Staff member
In other words, you are making stuff up and living by the seat of your fantasies in this discussion.
Thus far, your ethical standards that you deem could be morally acceptable, are based on fantasies. In one instance you declared that women can simply die earlier if they are sick, just so long as the foetus is saved. In this sick and twisted scenario, you deemed it acceptable to simply make her die faster (this is murder by the way) by forcibly cutting her stomach open without her consent to remove the foetus. And you think that this is somehow or other an ethical framework that could be worked towards. Which leads me to believe that you are wholly morally bankrupt and sick. And I haven't even touched on your desire to practice eugenics as an ethical standard.
One of the absolutely worst fantasies and one that you seem to believe that I should somehow agree with because you have taken so much time to misrepresent what has been said in this thread was when you said this:
ElectricFetus said:
Let me be clear about something so that you stop misrepresenting and applying your sick and twisted fantasies when it comes to women's bodies and abortion.
- A 3rd trimester abortion takes 3+ days. This was linked earlier when I linked an interview with a late term abortion provider. While you keep asserting that a woman can simply demand that a feotus can be aborted as it's coming out of her vagina, the reality is so far from different, that all you are doing is lying and misrepresenting reality. In other words, if a woman were to request an abortion while she was in active labour, it would be deemed murder, since the baby would have to be born before it could be killed, because if a foetus stays in the vagina for 3+ days, then it would die. And you expect me to agree to this? Really? Are you that thick?
- I linked and explained why a woman is unable to abort at full term. I also linked one of the minute few doctors who perform late term abortions who clearly stated that full term is a no-go zone when it comes to abortions. And you keep insisting that I agree that women can do this, and delve further into the land of fantasies that she can do it while she is in labour? What this comes down to is pure trolling on your part.
Do you understand now? Or are you just going to keep lying and trolling?
Let me be clear, not only will I not advocate murder, for obvious reasons, but I find your ethical standards to be that which could be at home in Nazi Germany in the concentration camps.
Which leads me onto this..
This would have to be, by far, one of the biggest examples of trolling and disgusting behaviour I have seen on this site. And this is as someone who had to moderate Sandy and the guy who was the paedophile and argued for being allowed to rape children.ElectricFetus said:
Not only do you suggest murdering children, you also deem the life of someone who is sick and terminal as being not "worth that much".
Oh no, no way, you're not getting away with that one. You like hypotheticals, this one should be clear. Since you apparently didn't understand it though, I will restate.
The medical situation is such that the prognosis for the mother carrying to term is near certain death, only aborting a "viable" fetus will prevent this. Furthermore, the woman can only expect to live [insert time frame here - 5 weeks, 50 weeks, 500 weeks] even after having the abortion because of her terminal disease. Needless to say (I would think), the expectant mother desires to abort in this case. What is the "ethical" action to take? What say ye now?
Edited to add: BTW, I'm still waiting on your working definition of "viable". Do you have one?
No many of these things are real, 3rd trimester abortions, double homicide, the ethical stances we make also have an effect on how we judge all the cases you present, more so their is legal precedence as well for them, for example the viability model is a specific outcome of Roe vs Wade which grants states the the right to forbid late term abortions based on the viability argument. So yes if the law is interpreted via the viability model, as many times it has been, a viable fetus could be extracted by force from a terminally ill pregnant women if the state requires it, if this reduces what left of her lifespan the viability model makes it worthwhile because she can't take her child to the grave with her, that would be murder by the way. So the state must decide between harming her and promoting her impending death or letting her murder her child... that latter part seems impossible for you the understand. Again the viability model starts granting rights to a viable fetus, it now a "child" or the moral equivalent to a "child", it would be sickening indeed to pretend this is not the case without an ethical framework to explains why, that would be a sign of complete moral bankruptcy on your part.
There are several kinds of 3rd trimester abortions, intact D&X or non-intact D&E. For a inact D&X procedure the first day is dilation, the patient can even goes home after Dilapan are jab into her crevice to force it open, the next day is also dilation, the 3rd day is the actual operation. http://www.sharonvilleclinic.com/uploads/6/2/0/0/6200039/idx.pdf
So we can forgo days one and two if a mother was already in labor and dilated, all that is needed is to jab as vacuum tube in the fetuses intruding skull and suck it out.
Anyways the very nature of intact D&X means that a viable fetus is pull partially through the cervix, hence way it has been called "partial birth", induce labor is often used with this procedure, so the only thing that separates that from induce birth is that in the 'moments' before the head makes it out of the uterus, a vacuum tube is shoved in the fetuses skull and the brains are suck out. So this procedure can qualify as "abortion moments before birth".
No there is nothing physically or biologically preventing them from killing the fetus while it inside her, even if it is full term and being born... other then the morals of the doctors of course. So basically your allowing doctors to override the rights of the woman? Again if you agree with the 'dry foot' model it is a the right of a women kill the fetus at any time that it is still insider her, you would need to accept that it is moral even if you believe it will never, ever happen. Now perhaps you have a more complex moral framework, besides "the doctors won't allow it", to forbid a women from killing her full term fetus, I would love to hear it.
Oh scathing... can you explain how my exploration of ethics that are relevant to the thread topic, is trolling? I'm not saying these things to be specifically inflammatory and get a rise out of you, nor am I calling you names, I am only asking that we determine an ethical framework for allowing abortion and for which all of its consequences are acceptable to us.
Not worth much compared to the life of their child, yes, I would think most would agree, you by your own admission in agonizing pain of labor, demanded saving your child over your self.
What the difference between doing induce labor or c-section verses aborting the viable fetus at this stage? Why would the formers kill her but the later allow her to live apparently a full life span? But what ever ok if it's really is kill one or the other: the viability model would require the state to determine which one to killed, since the viable fetus would have rights now (though not at a many as the women) at which point we would need to ask for other standards to help decide which one need to kill, a full ethical framework. If we add in the standards of consciousness and social member value the answer would clearly be kill the fetus, the women is conscious and has social value, the fetus does not. If we were to claim as pro-lifers do that the fetus is fundamentally innocent... then we should certainly kill it now to prevent it from acquiring original sin, straight to heaven, a sole saved.
I think your asking "what about the mothers opinion", sure we could allow it, all we need to do is say that a later term abortion is allowable if there medically determined extreme risk to the mother, thus preventing the mother opinion from being valid for frivolous things that would also override viability.
Of course again it is hard to see why the fetus NEEDS to be killed, medically it is either extract (one way or another) it or kill the mother by having her die from the pregnancy, it is not "kill it or kill her", once extracted it could be put in an incubator and perhaps live a full life.
If the mother it terminally ill regardless of the pregnancy, and she can't survive to full term birth and the fetus will die now if not extracted then some utilitarian philosophies coupled with viability model would demand extracting the fetus now, even if it kills the mother, her life is nearly over anyways, the fetus could have a full, productive, happy life. Generally one would think most women in such a situation would agree, figuring they have less then 3 month to live and having carried to term that fetus that far, they probably value it and calculate it value greater then themselves. But people don't always think the same, some people out there are such selfish, narcissistic or down right crazy. Hence why we have laws and moral standards.
The fetus could live outside the womb.
Really? You can't conceive of a situation in which there might be a difference? I'm not going to hunt down anecdotal examples for you that would be ignored, equivocated or rationalized anyway. I'm content with:
Abortion has been found to be significantly safer than carrying pregnancy to term. Terminating a pregnancy avoids the consequences of most cases of pregnancy-induced or associated hypertension and the major operative morbidity of cesarean delivery.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-treatment
Do you comprehend "significantly safer" and "major operative morbidity"?
Why is it you can not answer a very straightforward question directly? To wit:
The medical situation is such that the prognosis for the mother carrying to term is near certain death, only aborting a "viable" fetus will prevent this. Just to clarify, a C-section "extraction" won't cut it. Furthermore, the woman can only expect to live [insert time frame here - 5 weeks, 50 weeks, 500 weeks] even after having the abortion because of her terminal disease. The expectant mother desires to abort in this case. What is the "ethical" action to take?
You didn't answer it the first time and I don't expect you to answer this time, because you're afraid to. No prolifer has the courage of their convictions. That is the entire point of this whole thread. If a foetus is a person, entitled under the law to the rights of other "people", what then?
Which rights, specifically. Do tell.
Why not?
Which do you claim? one of these or something entirely different? I know, I know, another question you won't answer.
No, I'm not.
I just love this new term you've come up with, "extracted". Lovely ring to it... Don't you mean take a really sharp knife and cut the woman's body in a "morbid" fashion (see above) to satisfy your sense of morality? See, I couldn't care less what your personal views on abortion are as long as you keep them that way - personal. In other words, go form whatever abstract model of ethics you like, just don't attempt to force that model on others.
I know you'll pretend you didn't see this question because you're not stupid, you know what will come next. What about four months? What about six? What about twelve? That's right, just choose to ignore this one, it's very inconvenient to that ethical house of cards you've built for yourself.
If it could, and getting to the outside of that womb had no adverse affect on the "host" (we call them women) this whole thing would be a non-issue. Sadly, reality intrudes...
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Commentators are starting to speculate that North Carolina may turn Blue. The only home ground left to the party of Abe Lincoln is, ironically, the former Confederacy. If it starts to abandon the G.O.P. because even religious, racist, gun-totin' Rednecks have a limited tolerance for bullshit, it could mean the end of the party. I wonder which of the illogically labeled "third parties" will spring up to fill the void?
Hopefully, the Greens.
This is not talking about later term abortions, but early term abortions where the advantages are clear, all of which are before viability of a fetus. Later term abortions are complex procedures that share many similarities to induce birth, in short a late term abortion and induce labor and c-section all have relatively equal risks depending on individual situations, now if the fetus can be removed without killing it and doing so does not harm the women any more then killing it and then removing it, why not take it out alive?
I already answered the question: specifically in any hypothetical situation in which we must choose which one to kill. Why can't you recongnize I answed the question?
No I answered that question, I'll repeat: in that situation in which it either abort the fetus and leave the mother to live an unknown lifespan or kill the fetus, most models would side with the mother. The viability model alone only states that now we have conflict between the mother and fetus right to life, other standards are required to make the decision, all of which I can think of would side with the mother. Now if the mother was doom to die before the pregnancy makes it to term would change that metric as would other parameters.
Since I'm not a pro-lifer I guess your just speaking about someone else from this point on.
Well if the viability model is being used then in has rights like a child does, killing it could be counted as murder, harm or negligence to it could be considered child abuse. Roe vs Wade makes this model one is which states can implement.
Of course a fetus is qualified as viable by the trimester system as 28 weeks or more, although technology has brought that down to 24 weeks. Also some count deformities other then ones that guaranteed short life outside the womb as qualifying inviability, but if we count that then were entering into law eugenics, and much to Bells hiss-fits that could lead to a lot more ethic problems.
A fetus lack consciousness, social position, knowledge of the outside world and perhaps even proper ability to feel pain. All of which are consider adding value or making up a “person” or “personhood”, all of which the mother has but the fetus does not. The viability model only gives the fetus some rights as mentioned before, not to be abused, requiring exception to kill, etc, but does not give a fetus all the rights of a full person.
Well as I mentioned before in the previous post you quoted and above, for example the standard of consciousness, when I said “If we add in the standards of consciousness” is a standard I claimed we need to add to answer the ethical problem of which to kill. Another is social member value, which means the women is a part of society, a fetus on the other hand is not. Both of these were answered to your question.
Very well.
Not at all, there are different way the baby can be extracted, some of which do not involve cutting anything (other then the umbilical cord after birth). That being induced birth. As for c-section no those generally involve anesthetics and and minor incision, in fact there safety is arguable comparable or better than vaginal birth.
Well that is what the law does, force morality on others, we should argue about ethics now so that someone else does not implement their ethics as law without over us without our say or even understanding.
I guessing you mean the lifespan of the women? As I said before if it extends beyond the birth of the baby it would be irrelevant, just give birth, so we are talking about a range of at most 3 months between viability and birth. If the women is to die in birth or further pregnancy then the fetus needs to be extracted, if somehow the fetus needs to die in the extraction process for the mother to live, then most ethical standards would side with the women, in that situation. Now if the women was going to die soon afterwards, again within 3 months thus requiring extraction and not natural birth, some ethical standards such as utilitarianism would side with extracting the fetus even if it kills her, because its more probably to live a long happy life, then she is. I said all this before... how is this not answering your questions?
If getting it out of the womb is the problem, then leave it in there, unless removing it benefits the mother or it, if it harms the mother and benefits the fetus then that has to be a decision based on a complex ethical framework and laws I've explained above.
wynn:
I'm an idiot for asking you to explain your position? Ah, of course.
Moving beyond my mainstream, materialistic notions of personhood for a moment, I begin to wonder why the woman in the case at hand, although brain-dead, would still have her non-materialistic personhood negated by your "triage" model. Isn't a dead woman still a person? It's only her mainstream materialistic body that died, not her personhood. Isn't it?
Tell me, if you can, wynn, when exactly a foetus becomes a non-materialistic person. Is it at conception? Before conception, perhaps? And when does anybody's non-materialistic personhood end? Not at death, surely. When, then? Or is it an endless cycle of reincarnation for you, maybe?
I mean, if you're going to introduce the idea that non-mainstream, non-materialistic personhood is somehow important in deciding the ethical question in the case at hand, then don't you think you'd better explain how that particular notion works and why it is such an important thing that all us materialist types need to appreciate?
I expect, of course, that you'll take the easy out and call me an idiot again for daring to call you out on your mumbo jumbo.
I'm an idiot for asking you to explain your position? Ah, of course.
Moving beyond my mainstream, materialistic notions of personhood for a moment, I begin to wonder why the woman in the case at hand, although brain-dead, would still have her non-materialistic personhood negated by your "triage" model. Isn't a dead woman still a person? It's only her mainstream materialistic body that died, not her personhood. Isn't it?
Tell me, if you can, wynn, when exactly a foetus becomes a non-materialistic person. Is it at conception? Before conception, perhaps? And when does anybody's non-materialistic personhood end? Not at death, surely. When, then? Or is it an endless cycle of reincarnation for you, maybe?
I mean, if you're going to introduce the idea that non-mainstream, non-materialistic personhood is somehow important in deciding the ethical question in the case at hand, then don't you think you'd better explain how that particular notion works and why it is such an important thing that all us materialist types need to appreciate?
I expect, of course, that you'll take the easy out and call me an idiot again for daring to call you out on your mumbo jumbo.
- Status