What is it?

So the fetus is innocent of...something, that must mean there is a guilty perpetrator involved too. Who else could it be?

 

Well obviously, since it's the laws that force men to pay for the children they sire.

But I really do still not care. All I care about in this issue is assuring that women maintain full legal authority over their own autonomy without interference from anyone, especially the state or potentially dangerous and violent men.

Duh. Who else should have the right to govern their body but the person themselves?

And there are no parents yet during a pregnancy. You only have parents when you have born children.

 

You're taking my comments out of context. I mean "innocent" in the sense of responsibility.

 

The fetus is innocently responsible? Now you're just confusing things even more.

Who is innocent and who is guilty and why does it matter in this situation?

 

Hmm, maybe because it's inside her body making permanent psychological, hormonal, and physiological changes and damages to her body forever AND putting her health and life at risk? Yeah I think it has something to do with that.

Because it is fallacious to compare killing a sleeping person and killing a fetus, location is a very important factor here if you have not noticed.

Perhaps you have never heard of Reproductive coercion?

Allow me to enlighten you. And yes, force, abuse and manipulation are typically used in these cases even if the sex was consensual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion

This is precisely why only a woman should be legally allowed to make decisions over her autonomy, including the choice of carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion, because what you are suggesting by giving the man some sort of input or ability to overrule her you are opening the doors wide open for reproductive coercion.

 

Having sex and getting pregnant doesn't make the woman guilty of anything, in and of itself. But it does make her responsible. The fetus is innocent in the sense that it has no responsibility. The woman is responsible for getting pregnant, because she could have chose to avoid having sex. The fetus could not have chosen to avoid getting the woman pregnant.

That's why I believe the fetus's rights should override the woman's rights.

 

Why do you have a problem with freedom?

What is your point with the whole 'intent' thing? That because something 'intends' to do something the person it is intending to do things too must just sit back and let it happen?

- - - Updated - - -

Even in the case of rape?

See, every single time you walk in here with that STUPID argument I will bring out the obvious. You don't believe a woman who was raped should be allowed to have an abortion even though she did not choose to have sex and is NOT responsible for what happened to her. So clearly your argument is MOOT and POINTLESS because you make no exceptions and how she conceived becomes irrelevant.

So why do you even bother with this STUPID and MOOT point?

 

If a man encourages his partner to keep the baby or have an abortion, that's not a crime. It's only a crime if he uses threats to scare her.

 

It is her sole responsibility. It is her body and her choice to do what she likes with her uterus whether she wants to reproduce or not is up to her.

You've completely lost me on this 'irresponsible man' thing. I have no idea what you're even babbling about anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is fine.

It is also not a crime for her to not even inform the man she slept with that she is pregnant or that she is going to have an abortion. If she wants his input she will tell him and most women do already so I don't know why anybody is up in arms about this.

It is also not a crime for her to have the baby in secret and give it up for adoption and just pretend she doesn't know who the father is.

 

When does encouraging a woman to have an abortion (or keep the baby) become a crime?

 

I think it is a good comparison. It damages a person's body permanently and so they should be free to remove it from their bodies if they choose, just like a fetus.

Nonsense.

Computers aren't natural why are you using one!? Radiation therapy to remove cancer is not natural! Heart surgery is not natural (I mean come on, since when is slicing a person open and prodding there inside ever natural?) Dialyses is not natural! The entire medical Science division is not natural...but it saves lives. Whoa, shocker there. Even abortion saves lives.

What is and is not natural is quite frankly irrelevant to whether or not people want to do 'unnatural' things.

 

If it's inside her body yes.

Of course they do (albeit the fetus will probably never practice their legal rights over their autonomy until adulthood). If a man has a parasite inside his body, a.k.a. DNA that is not his, he may remove it.

WTF is a stand your ground law? Self defense laws?

Our laws already deem some pregnancies as injuries to women, for example if a woman is raped and impregnated she may remove it as per self defense. I don't see why that shouldn't extend to all pregnancies since they all carry with them the same risks and dangers to ones health and life.

Yes, evolutionary we would, but since evolutionary a uterus is there to support her insides that's what it is there for, along with a myriad of other reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as I can tell it has really no purpose unless the woman gives it one, i.e. she wants a baby.

- - - Updated - - -

Never said it was.

 

Pro lifers do not want to punish women for sex.

 

IVF clinics don't use viable fetuses, they use unfertilized ova.

I am just answering your incorrect comment which you stated as follows - "Pregnancy is not a prerequisite for sex, but sex is certainly a prerequisite for pregnancy" - which is factually incorrect, sex is not a prerequisite for pregnancy.

Neither of your options apply to me.

Really just how are you going to swing that one when there is no consent from the person it is attaching to, does the female have a choice in the matter.

Absolute rubbish, and contrary to your comment I have explicitly argued that there are implicit and explicit acts of consent, none of which apply in pregnancy, that you wish to ignore that is your problem not mine.

You keep on about this inane 'special rights' thing, what special rights are you talking about, because the only rights I am stating are preexisting rights that you, I and everyone else has. The right to defend your body against unconsented injuries and the right to decide who, what, when and where your body is used by another. The only special rights being advocated are those by pro-lifers that would allow a fetus to use another persons body in order to sustain their life, that is a right no other person has .. or can you give evidence to dispute that?

A revolver (assuming a six shot capability) held to your head will have a risk factor of between 16 - 100% of holding a bullet (I assume the gun is loaded with at least one bullet based on your comment), a single act of unprotected sex has less than a 9% risk factor of causing a pregnancy and that is IF all factors are at their premium, take into account the fertility of the man and/or woman, the 25% of fertilized ova that fail to implant and the 1/3 implanted ova that end in miscarriage and the risk falls to around 1% for a pregnancy occurring from a single act of unprotected sex, and further more if by some chance you were to survive the bullet to your head would you be refused treatment in order to remove it, even though you took the risk that put it there in the first place?

It certainly does, unless you can show otherwise.

Oh come on, now you are clutching at straws, you know as well as I do that the gender expressed in this case has no bearing on it's usage in other cases.

The case was heard on 26th July 1978, which you would have seen if you had actually read the court article linked to.

This finding has been used in numerous cases since.

The fact is this case states a legal precedence concerning how far the law can go to force a person to give up or use their body in aid to another even if it leads to the their death, that you choose to ignore it only leads me to the conclusion that you are not really interested in anything that doesn't adhere to your opinion.

The decision of the woman is EXACTLY the same as the decision of the man in this case, the decision not to allow a part of his/her body to be used in order to sustain another persons life.

You do love these sound bites with no evidence to support them don't you .. please detail the exception you are referring to and the evidence to support that it is an exception.

Nothing special about them, a man has exactly the same right as the female, he can also revoke consent to sex na d should the woman continue she is guilty of rape. The same goes that should the time ever happen that a man can become pregnant he can also revoke consent, so your assertion of special rights is nothing but a red herring.

Only irrelevant to you because you cannot answer truthfully and instead decide to appeal to ridicule. - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

So will you answer truthfully, are you expected to be refused medical treatment to avail any injuries due a risk you took?

not asking you to, you did however state "That's just bad education." and I gave you one of the reasons for that "bad education"

So if you don't agree you should have no trouble producing a court decision that infringed a person right to body autonomy, can you?

Differentiation: 1 The process by which cells become progressively more specialized; a normal process through which cells mature. This process of specialization for the cell comes at the expense of its breadth of potential. Stem cells can, for example, differentiate into secretory cells in the intestine. - http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2992

I am not a developmental biologist so I cannot give you an in depth explanation, only one I have researched, and that is prior to differentiation every single cell is exactly the same, any one of them can become a 'person' it is only after the cells have differentiated that the process of 'building' a human being begins .. none of the original cells go into the finished article. Another member can give a much more in depth explanation than I can, Giftedone.

In order to substantiate that you need to provide evidence to support that there has been a time when a woman would not get an abortion if the man disagreed, can you?

and BTW abortion has been happening before laws were introduced to restrict it .. restrictive abortion laws are a relatively new thing, especially when concerning early abortions.

no I am not.

No such thing as inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are defined as a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred , you tell me one right that meets that definition, the closest to it is the right I have been stating, the right to body autonomy. Certainly the right to life is not inalienable.

Cherry picking part of my comment in order to try and force a point is disingenuous, had you included the whole of my comment as follows;

No he doesn't simply because he is not the one whose body is being used by the fetus, it has no direct effect on his body autonomy, that decision rests solely with the female as it is her and only her body autonomy that is being effected .. if he were able to become pregnant then the same right applies to him, and the violinist argument is flawed IMHO

anyone can plainly see that I am not advocating special rights for a woman, in fact I state that the same right applies to men equally.

I am not supporting arguments for it.

In order for equality to be truly equal than the man should have the right to 'abort' his relationship with the woman and, before birth the fetus, and, after birth, the baby.
As to helping the woman (she is not a mother until after the birth, unless she has other born children) it doesn't, but then it is her choice whether to maintain the pregnancy through to birth or to abort, not his.

That is factually incorrect, 9 men decided on a constitutional item, they did not decide whether any human can die in the womb, that decision has always rested with the woman, and it has never mattered whether abortion were illegal or not, women WILL seek an abortion regardless of the legal standings or the punishment.

Just how you come to that conclusion evades me .. how does the cost of welfare bring the conclusion that abortion on demand is a problem, some sort of twisted reasoning?

So when you have need of treatment for a broken leg you should be made to wait for a "few months"

Paper cuts are not

 

Yes, they do. By wanting to outllaw abortion they want to force women to give birth. They have posted many times how the woman should "be responsible " and give birth, they think THEY should have a say in what is "responsible" for others LONG before they're responsible for their own business. They want women punished by being forced to give birth because the woman should have to face the consequences of her mistake.


Many Anti-Choicers think an exception should be made in the case of rape or incest...PROVING that they're only concern is punishing a woman who had consensual sex.

 

Are you going to attempt to address the following

As far as respite from injury is concerned it is, otherwise when a woman's life is in danger from pregnancy the 'innocence' of the fetus would be a factor in the decision of whether to abort or not. You are saying that the fetus cannot be blamed for the injuries it causes in a normal pregnancy, so how can it be blamed in a life threatening pregnancy, does the fetus suddenly gain an intent to injure, how arbitrary of you.

or ignore it as you usually do when faced with something you have no coherent response to

 

Still on the same old blind horse I see, what have reasons concerned with NOW when abortion is legal got to do with reasons in a world where abortion is illegal.

 

The reason a woman wants to have an abortion has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is legal or not.

 

Ya, so?

 

Reread the previous comments and youll understand the context of it.

 

To me personally intent, or no intent is not the reason I want an exception of danger to the woman, or fetus in place. Do I feel the fetus has intent to harm the woman? No I actually feel most of the harm comes from the woman's body itself, not the fetus directly. Now as far as why would I be OK with abortion in the circumstance of danger to the woman? Quite simple one life lost is better then two lives lost, or that life will be lost if it is not aborted. The decision would be the woman's and nobody else in these circumstances, as her own life is literally in danger, by any standard in any state.

 

This was still up in the air at the time of the decision of Roe v Wade. But I guess we've settled this thread. What is it? It is a human. It is not a cancer, it is not a vagrant committing an assault on a woman, it is not property, you agree it is a human. Let's keep this in mind in future discussions, shall we?

 

In what other legal case does a single individual have the right to arbitrarily kill another human being? Name one and we can put my "inane special rights thing" behind us.

 

You need to read more carefully. Being "human" (adjective) does not necessarily mean being "A human" (noun). A zef is definitely human and alive, but eggs and sperm are also human and alive. I've already got that firmly in mind, but it would be good if you would keep it in mind.

 

How am I being arbitrary?