"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[resurrected]

Abstinence doesn't work ...

Those periods of my life when I've been abstinent?

It's worked.

No pregnancies.

 

[mighty_duck]

Exactly. I feel this debunks the "it's the woman's body" rationalization. It's not. It's the body of someone else who happens to be living and growing inside the body of another.

This isn't a particularly strong argument (or counter-argument, really).

While you are correct that the fetus is distinct, and is not part of the woman's body, how about the umbilical cord, the placenta, or the womb?

At some point along the chain, you have to admit that it is the woman's body. And at that point, it is the woman who must decide who can and can't use her body.

 

[WizardofOz]

This isn't a particularly strong argument (or counter-argument, really).

While you are correct that the fetus is distinct, and is not part of the woman's body, how about the umbilical cord, the placenta, or the womb?

At some point along the chain, you have to admit that it is the woman's body. And at that point, it is the woman who must decide who can and can't use her body.

:chuckle: But this is a strong argument?

The womb is part of the woman's body. However, the doctor does not abort the womb, they kill the fetus/embryo. Same goes for the umbilical cord (although this is really neither the mother's nor the fetuses, rather a link between the two).

'The woman's body' argument does fall flat because nothing is done to harm the woman's body (although abortion is not "good for" the woman). Rather, the body that is targeted is a new and genetically distinct human body albeit at an early stage of development.

If the rationale is "a woman can do what they want with their body, therefore abortion must remain legal", well, no, the body is not hers. It's the body of her fetus/embryo.

Case law:

I am writing to introduce myself. My name is Cornelia Whitner. I am at State Park Correction Center. In 1992 I was sentenced to 8 years in prison for smoking crack cocaine while pregnant, so I was charged with unlawful child neglect. I was very sick from being addicted to crack cocaine. source

She was arrested for smoking crack while pregnant. If it's her body, why is she legally culpable? Do you feel women should be able to (using a legal method) get drunk while pregnant with no possible legal recourse?

In two cases, women have been arrested for drinking while pregnant. In State v. Pfannestiel, Wyoming officials brought criminal charges against a pregnant woman for drinking on the grounds that her activity, while itself legal, constituted child abuse because it endangered her fetus. The charges were dismissed on the narrow legal grounds that the state could not prove harm from the alcohol to the fetus while it was still in utero.(8) In Missouri, Lisa Pindar was charged with second-degree assault and child endangerment after her son was born, allegedly with signs of fetal alcohol syndrome?(9) In addition, at least one judge has commented approvingly on such prosecutions]Mom charged with endangering child for smoking while pregnant source Although source argues against such prosecution

Unless we're playing ambiguous shadow games, I don't see how the 'it's the mother's body' argument has any merit, objectively or scientifically.

 

[mighty_duck]

If the rationale is "a woman can do what they want with their body, therefore abortion must remain legal", well, no, the body is not hers. It's the body of her fetus/embryo.

Suppose you agree that it is the woman's decision regarding who can and can't use her body.

Can she cut the umbilical cord, or detach the placenta from the womb?

 

[resurrected]

Suppose you agree that it is the woman's decision regarding who can and can't use her body.

Can she cut the umbilical cord, or detach the placenta from the womb?

Should a new mother be allowed to leave her child in a snowbank?

 

[mighty_duck]

Should a new mother be allowed to leave her child in a snowbank?

Is the child using her body's most private parts against her will?
Can the mother very simply and safely release guardianship of the child?
Does the child have working higher brain function?

There is a difference between social dependance and physical bodily dependance.

 

[resurrected]

Is the child using her body's most private parts against her will?

If she's nursing? Sure?

Can the mother very simply and safely release guardianship of the child?

You mean like adoption?

Does the child have working higher brain function?

I dunno.

Is it a liberal? :banana:


Or, does that matter?

Would your answer change if the child was severely retarded?

 

[quip]

Exactly. I feel this debunks the "it's the woman's body" rationalization. It's not. It's the body of someone else who happens to be living and growing inside the body of another.

"who happens" ?

No one says that only one body is involved. As you stated it's two bodies one subsisting within and upon another. No where else can one body live (subsist) upon another without consent. Do you view pregnancy as special in this regard?

 

[resurrected]

No one says that only one body is involved. As you stated it's two bodies one subsisting within and upon another. No where else can one body live (subsist) upon another without consent. Is pregnancy special in this regard?

I understand what you're saying Quip, but is the vulnerability of an unborn child any less than that of a newborn, or someone near the end of life, or someone who is severely ill?

 

[quip]

I understand what you're saying Quip, but is the vulnerability of an unborn child any less than that of a newborn, or someone near the end of life, or someone who is severely ill?

Vulnerability? What's the relevance? There are valid euthanasia arguments but I don't see the connection to abortion.

 

[resurrected]

Vulnerability? What's the relevance? There are valid euthanasia arguments but I don't see the connection to abortion.

perhaps I misunderstood your position

I was making the case that the preborn is as dependent on others as the newborn, the severely ill....

 

[WizardofOz]

Suppose you agree that it is the woman's decision regarding who can and can't use her body.

Can she cut the umbilical cord, or detach the placenta from the womb?

Is that humanly possible?

If she were nine month pregnant would you allow her to do the same with no possible criminal recourse?

I simply think that the law should be consistent. What harm the woman or her doctor is prohibited from doing at nine months should also be prohibited at nine weeks.

 

[mighty_duck]

If she's nursing? Sure?

Can a mother choose to stop nursing?

You mean like adoption?

Yes, like adoption.

Would your answer change if the child was severely retarded?

No. Even the severely retarded have higher brain function.

My answer would certainly change if the child had no higher brain function, like if they were brain dead.

Analogies aren't very useful - there really isn't a very good analogy to an unwanted pregnancy. The one you presented is a prime example.

 

[WizardofOz]

"who happens" ?

No one says that only one body is involved. As you stated it's two bodies one subsisting within and upon another. No where else can one body live (subsist) upon another without consent. Do you view pregnancy as special in this regard?

Well, it is difficult to compare other situations to being pregnant. It is special in many regards.

It is just as much the mother's body at nine months. Should she be allowed to legally abort then?

No, this is where your argument changes.

 

[quip]

perhaps I misunderstood your position

I was making the case that the preborn is as dependent on others as the newborn, the severely ill....

The fetus is dependent on the mother, technically speaking. But the argument for abortion is one of trespass (for lack of better term) not dependence.

 

[WizardofOz]

The fetus is dependent on the mother, technically speaking. But the argument for abortion is one of trespass (for lack of better term) not dependence.

The trespass increases during pregnancy, it does not lessen. You do not want abortion to be legal when the trespass is the greatest, do you?

I feel that for this reason, this argument also falls flat.

 

[quip]

Well, it is difficult to compare other situations to being pregnant. It is special in many regards.

It is just as much the mother's body at nine months. Should she be allowed to legally abort then?

No, this is where your argument changes.

Personally I believe the earliest in the pregnancy the better. That being said though my opinion cannot be legislated.

 

[quip]

The trespass increases during pregnancy, it does not lessen. You do not want abortion to be legal when the trespass is the greatest, do you?

I feel that for this reason, this argument also falls flat.

I don't want abortions at all...it's simply a reality that needs to be dealt with.

 

[mighty_duck]

Is that humanly possible?

If she were nine month pregnant would you allow her to do the same with no possible criminal recourse?

I simply think that the law should be consistent. What harm the woman or her doctor is prohibited from doing at nine months should also be prohibited at nine weeks.

Consistency is nice, but the variables of the situation are different between conception, 9 weeks and 9 months, and attempting to treat them all in the same way results in injustice.

At nine months - the baby is viable. At 9 weeks, it isn't.
At nine months - the baby has a working cerbral cortex - at 9 weeks it doesn't.
At nine months - the mother has had months to learn about the pregnancy, deliberate, and by allowing it to continue has very strongly consented to growing a child inside her. At nine weeks - none of that holds true.*
At nine months - an abortion and a delivery are (physically) almost identical for the mother. At nine weeks, they are vastly different.



*Many pro-lifers would claim that sex is also an implicit agreement to carry a child to term. While I strongly disagree, it is a somewhat tenable argument. However, it ignores cases of rape, incest, and to a lesser degree contraception malfunction.

 

[WizardofOz]

Consistency is nice, but the variables of the situation are different between conception, 9 weeks and 9 months, and attempting to treat them all in the same way results in injustice.

We obviously have a different definition of justice.

At nine months - the baby is viable. At 9 weeks, it isn't.
At nine months - the baby has a working cerbral cortex - at 9 weeks it doesn't.
At nine months - the mother has had months to learn about the pregnancy, deliberate, and by allowing it to continue has very strongly consented to growing a child inside her. At nine weeks - none of that holds true.*
At nine months - an abortion and a delivery are (physically) almost identical for the mother. At nine weeks, they are vastly different.

Therein lies the rub. Somewhere along the line we have this ambiguously chosen "magic moment" wherein the fetus is worth legal protection.

A 24-week-old fetus can be killed legally but a 25-week-old fetus cannot. That's justice? :AMR:

*Many pro-lifers would claim that sex is also an implicit agreement to carry a child to term. While I strongly disagree, it is a somewhat tenable argument. However, it ignores cases of rape, incest, and to a lesser degree contraception malfunction.

Criminalize abortion and encourage adoption. It's the most ideal scenario for all involved.