Ethereal

A fetus does not "leech" anything. It is given sustenance. There's a big difference. Also, something cannot be classified as a parasite simply because it is detrimental to its host, how it acts as a detriment to its host is what matters, i.e., it harms its host by way of specialized pathology.

Surely you don't feel this is a valid rebuttal?

I just gave two perfectly valid reasons why the unborn cannot be considered a parasite and you failed to adequately rebutt them. You cannot classify the unborn as parasites unless you invalidate my explainations.

A sure sign that someone is losing a debate is characterising your opponent's argument as insiginifigant without bothering to explain why. You've done this twice now.

All of these are easily mitigated and of little consequence to one's overall health. Prices one must pay bringing a life into being.

People in a coma exhibit none of the qualities you mentioned, nor do some people who suffer from severe mental retardation.

So, you agree, that pro-choicers, unless they confer the status of personhood upon some primates, are not being consistent in their interpretation and application of the law?

As do coma patients and those with severe mental retardation. And your list didn't say the ability to deny or accept one's moral responsibility was the issue, only that one have a moral responsibility. So, if I deny my moral responsibility, by your logic, I've ceased being a person. Furthermore, a moral responsibility is totally subjective and cannot be accurately or comprehensively quantified therefore it is a spurious prerequisite.

This is circular logic. In order for one to do those things you must be a person, but in order to be a person you must do those things. This makes no sense.

This doesn't make sense for two reasons. First, it is another example of circular logic. You can only incur rights if you're a person, but you're only a person if you incur rights. Secondly, if the capability of exercising one's right determines the actuality of their rights then mutes don't have the right to free speech, and coma patients don't have any rights because they are incapable of exercsing them. Conversely, if this logic is true then the unborn have the right to life as they are capable of exercising it.

So, what law specifically fails to recognize a "zef" as being a person?

Wikipedia is referencing laws and situations it fails to specify in detail. What laws or social theories are they refering to? And more importantly, why, in an argument where I'm contesting the validity of the law, are you citing the law as a rebuttal to my affirmation? It's circular.

Well, even if this were true it is irrelevent as I'm specifically contesting the validity of Roe v Wade, therefore you cannot use it as an example of its own validity.

OKgrannie

A fetus is given sustenance if a woman chooses to give it, if a woman chooses not to give it, the fetus takes it anyway until it is removed.



For the nth time, I am not attempting to "classify" the unborn as parasites. They are parasitical, that is LIKE a parasite in some ways, that is not a scientifical classification. Parasitical is an adjective, that is a descriptive word.


It's all very easy to say the damage to someone else's body is "easily mitigated and of little consequence." A woman, usually a young woman, has to live with the damage for the rest of her life, often having corrective surgery which risks her life again, and even so, surgery never makes it the same again. Those are prices some women are willing to pay, but if a woman isn't willing, she shouldn't ever be forced.



Even if they are not currently exhibiting those qualities, they possess them.


.

You can deny your moral responsibility or any other responsibility all you like, it remains your responsibility.



This is circular logic. In order for one to do those things you must be a person, but in order to be a person you must do those things. This makes no sense
This doesn't make sense for two reasons. First, it is another example of circular logic. You can only incur rights if you're a person, but you're only a person if you incur rights. Secondly, if the capability of exercising one's right determines the actuality of their rights then mutes don't have the right to free speech, and coma patients don't have any rights because they are incapable of exercsing them. Conversely, if this logic is true then the unborn have the right to life as they are capable of exercising it.

It's simple: Personhood requires certain characteristics that are missing in the fetus. While the whole of society may not agree on exactly WHAT characteristics are necessary to qualify for personhood, it is clear to a majority of the populace that the fetus is lacking in sufficient characteristics to qualify for personhood. Since it is an opinion, you are free to treat any fetus residing within you as a person if you wish. I wouldn't try getting a social security number or any number of other things. Others are free to disregard the idea of personhood for the fetus.

No law "fails" because a zef is not a person. But classification of a zef as a person is immaterial anyway, the vital point, the only point is WHERE the fetus resides and whether it has a right to stay there. You cannot give a fetus the right to stay where it is not wanted without seriously infringing upon a woman's rights.



I'm not referring to RvW.

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

DarkWizard12

I couldn't help but notice.

You don't think that fetuses form spontaneusly, do you?
sustenance - definition of sustenance from YourDictionary.com

roguenuke

If she's not willing to pay the small prices of having a baby, then she shouldn't be having sex. Most women, including teenagers, know that having sex can lead to pregnancy. And most of these, no matter what they may or may not have been taught in school or at home, know that their is no absolute way to prevent getting pregnant if they are having vaginal sex short of having a hystorectomy. And the older the woman is, the more likely she is to know these things. If a woman is not willing to be responsible for her own actions, then she should not be having sex.

Smoke[MaxX]

This is so one-sided it's not even funny. There are many possible scenarios here:
1) A teenage girl was taught only abstinence growing up and has little to no sexual education. When she enters high school, she has grown and matured and boys have taken notice. They constantly peer pressure her until she has sex.
2) A young woman is raped by a man.
3) A young woman reads the label on her contraceptive that says "99.9% effective" and assumes that means that it always works.
4) A young woman's contraceptive was defective.
5) A man purposefully has sex in an unsafe manner as to either A) cause pregnancy or B) show that he does not care to be safe.

A woman should not have sex unless she's ready to suffer the consequences? I think it should be more of a "A woman should be able to have sex as frequently as desired with little risk of pregnancy, but should something happen, there should be other options." Why should men be able to have sex all they want and women have to "wait until she's ready to deal with the consequences"? That's women's rights right there.

Ikari

Coincidence of nature. I'm not saying women have to refrain from sex, but they're the one's which carry children and thus the consequences which can result from sex are more dire for them than the man who can run off like a wuss. It isn't fair in the least, but that's how evolution worked it. Sexually reproducing has many advantages to the species, carrying the child inside one of the adults is safer than laying eggs especially when a species is designed around limited reproduction, one of the sexes has to carry the baby. It's how it works. Actions have consequences and it's true for sex as well. It's not equal across the sexes by mere virtue of how our species reproduces. It's a base fundamental, it's not fair, get over it.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

OKgrannie

Your point is?

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

OKgrannie

"Small" price of having a baby?Raising that '07 baby will cost $204,060 in U.S. | Lifestyle | Living | Reuters
"WASHINGTON (Reuters Life!) - Middle-income families can expect to spend $204,060 on feeding, housing and schooling a child born in 2007 until his or her 18th birthday, the U.S. government reported on Monday."

And that's only the financial cost. The physical, emotional, and mental costs of being a parent are enormous.

A woman is being responsible for her own actions when she chooses abortion. Abstinence is not a reasonable expectation. While BC frequently fails, it is reliable enough that people do depend upon it. Is your objection to abortion purely because of saving a life, or do you want to frighten young women into abstinence using the threat of pregnancy/childbirth?

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

OKgrannie

Actions do have consequences, but there is no good reason why the action of having sex MUST have the consequence of pregnancy/childbirth, childrearing.

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

rivrrat

How is having an abortion NOT being responsible? That makes no sense to me.

That's like saying, "Well there are consequences to your actions. So if you have sex and get syphlis, then you should be responsible and keep the disease. If you get rid of the disease, you're being irresponsible and running away from the consequeces of your actions."



Do we even have to go into women who are forced to have sex against their will? Are they shirking responsibility too for being so bold as to have an actual working vagina?

__________________