Intentionally causing fetal deformities

[cfreeman]

It's kinda scary to think there might be people in the US today that believe we only have rights because the almighty constitution gave them to us.

 

[_Sal]

It's not about why she would do it. It's a hypothetical. I know no one would ever do that. But why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they?

okay, then hypothetically once she has decided to terminate the pregnancy it doesn't matter what she does but why she would is ludicrous and lends itself to the insane

 

[cfreeman]

okay, then hypothetically once she has decided to terminate the pregnancy it doesn't matter what she does but why she would is ludicrous and lends itself to the insane

So if she intends to terminate the fetus, anything leading up to that is fair game? I disagree.

 

[_Sal]

It's kinda scary to think there might be people in the US today that believe we only have rights because the almighty constitution gave them to us.

yes well tell that to pro-lifers who believe once a woman is impregnated that the state owns her body and may force her to produce

 

[_Sal]

So if she intends to terminate the fetus, anything leading up to that is fair game? I disagree.

clarify please

 

[Henrin]

omg...how can this not be clear


...it absolutely matters because once the decision has been made to move forward to a birth one must then protect that cell clump to ensure the best outcome

How can the unborn be granted leeway from harm when it is not granted rights? Would you not violate the woman's rights by restricting how she can behave towards the unborn? Is the premise not that the woman has control over her body and thus can kill her unborn child? If so, why can't she ingest whatever she feels like?

How is it morally consistent to say you can kill it, but don't harm it and leave it alive?

 

[year2late]

That's not at all the discussion I was trying to start. The question is: "Is it morally acceptable to intentionally deform a fetus?"

I think the obvious answer is a resounding "NO".

This begs the question: "Why not? If abortion is morally acceptable for the reason that a fetus has no rights, why is it morally acceptable to destroy the fetus but not to deform it?"

But why even ask?

 

[Fearandloathing]

No. If it is aborted, it never had rights, never will and may as well never been conceived. If it is, however, born...well, then we have a completely different equation. Do we not?

Define "born". Scientifically "birth" occurs the second cells duplicate.

 

[year2late]

You have a valid opinion to a degree in that there could be an issue with dismissal when people present bizarre anomalies in order to counter pro-choice. I do not believe that is what happened here. To me it sounded like a genuine question "if you are pro choice, is there a difference here (to you)?" From what I have read, it would appear like pro-choicers do think there is a distinct difference.

It could have gone otherwise.

However this is what I find disturbing about your presentation: "go ahead" it sounds as if, you feel like you have the right to give permission for a discussion which of course is ludicrous and thus have you not hurt your cause in exactly the way you are wishing to avoid?

.
Nobody needs my permission. Obscure that you think that was the intent of my statement.

Intentionally causing anomalies....is that even a thing as it pertains to abortion? No.

 

[year2late]

I missed the decapitation topic - what was that about?

Look up Jake and John. Inserting the traumatically decapitated head onto the body of his brain dead twin brother.

Seriously.

 

[_Sal]

How can the unborn be granted leeway from harm when it is not granted rights? Would you not violate the woman's rights by restricting how she can behave towards the unborn? Is the premise not that the woman has control over her body and thus can kill her unborn child? If so, why can't she ingest whatever she feels like?

How is it morally consistent to say you can kill it, but don't harm it and leave it alive?

oh, you want to make it "law"

well there ya go, I'm out at this point...we were speaking of morality and you can't legislate morality

 

[calamity]

Define "born". Scientifically "birth" occurs the second cells duplicate.

Well, legally, it's when the puppy slides through the birth canal and takes a breath of its own.

 

[Henrin]

oh, you want to make it "law"

well there ya go, I'm out at this point...we were speaking of morality and you can't legislate morality

Ok, so this woman you speak of has control over body and can morally kill her unborn whenever she wants, but according to you if she decides to carry to term it is immoral for her to ingest things she knows that could cause damage to her unborn child. Why? It's using her body, it is still dependent on her, and she still has control over it, so can't she just decide to cause it to be brain damaged if she wants? It is after all her property, right?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Well, legally, it's when the puppy slides through the birth canal and takes a breath of its own.

You cite law, I cite science. Law is a creation of man; and with the right circumstances anything can be made legal, like slavery and ****, but it does not make it right

 

[calamity]

You cite law, I cite science. Law is a creation of man; and with the right circumstances anything can be made legal, like slavery and ****, but it does not make it right

I guess the term birth canal means nothing to you. Birth does not occur at conception. Duh.

 

[_Sal]

Ok, so this woman you speak of has control over body and can morally kill her unborn whenever she wants, but according to you if she decides to carry to term it is immoral for her to ingest things she knows that could cause damage to her unborn child. Why? It's using her body, it is still dependent on her, and she still has control over it, so can't she just decide to cause it to be brain damaged if she wants? It is after all her property, right?

yes this woman has control over her own body and may remove the clump of cells in a timely manner (12 weeks)

I did not mention anything about morality

if she does not choose to do so, and chooses to move forward with her pregnancy then she has made the choice to give birth

other than someone who is mentally limited why would she not protect that fetus?

do we force women to take supplements, no we do not, we instead attempt to educate them on the possible outcome of not doing so and the future harm it may cause

does a person have a moral obligation to give that clump of cells the best opportunity to survive once outside of the womb, I believe she does

does our society have an obligation to give that birthed child the best opportunity to survive once outside of the womb, I believe we do

 

[Fearandloathing]

How can the unborn be granted leeway from harm when it is not granted rights? Would you not violate the woman's rights by restricting how she can behave towards the unborn? Is the premise not that the woman has control over her body and thus can kill her unborn child? If so, why can't she ingest whatever she feels like?

How is it morally consistent to say you can kill it, but don't harm it and leave it alive?

You are mixing law with morals and the law has nothing to do with morality. You cannot legislate morality.

No, the law of your country has NOT granted rights to the unborn, but at the same time if you kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies you are guilty of a double homicide......that's a pretzel needs straightening. But based on that, then deliberately ingesting something to create someone who will be disabled is against the law.

 

[sangha]

I don't follow. If animals have zero rights, why would you be opposed to abusing them? Why should laws protect them if they have no rights?

Because the role of govt is not limited to protecting the rights of individuals. It is also tasked with promoting the people's welfare and maintaining social order

 

[Scrabaholic]

Absolutely, I can agree that that's part of why it's unacceptable. But what about if the woman intends to abort (independent of the deformities)? Is it morally acceptable for her to, after she has already decided to obtain a legal abortion, use thalidomide to ease morning sickness?

I don't believe doctors will prescribe it for that use any more. There are other medications that can be taken. Which medications can I take for morning sickness during pregnancy? | BabyCenter

I don't follow. If animals have zero rights, why would you be opposed to abusing them? Why should laws protect them if they have no rights?

Laws don't only protect rights. There is no right to not have property stolen, yet theft is illegal.

The very idea of rights is that they CANNOT be given or taken away. Otherwise they are "privileges". You can't use the word rights when you actually mean privileges.

Incorrect. The right to life can be taken away in certain countries (including yours) if the person commits a capital crime.

apparently, that is not being comprehended even though it has been mentioned ad nauseum

Either that or someone is just being argumentative.

 

[sangha]

The very idea of rights is that they CANNOT be given or taken away. Otherwise they are "privileges". You can't use the word rights when you actually mean privileges.

Rights most certainly can be given away as demonstrated by the multitude of NDA's that people have agreed to.

Your insistance on limiting a free persons ability to choose what to do with their rights is inconsistent with the principle of liberty

 

[sangha]

It's kinda scary to think there might be people in the US today that believe we only have rights because the almighty constitution gave them to us.

You are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding concerning our system of govt. The powers our govt has didn't magically get included in the constitution. They are there because that is what the people wanted and agreed to. You have to ignore that there is nothing illegitimate or unjust about free people agreeing to limit their rights and to delegate powers to their govt.

 

[Henrin]

yes this woman has control over her own body and may remove the clump of cells in a timely manner (12 weeks)

These limits on abortion interest me greatly. We start from the idea she control her body and can abort, but then something happens in peoples minds and walls are built at different stages depending on the person. The woman hasn't gotten to the point where she still isn't in control, but bam, no more abortion for her. Weird logic where two opposing principles collide and merge as one. I guess my way of thinking rejects those kind of conclusions because I honestly can't make sense of it.

other than someone who is mentally limited why would she not protect that fetus?

Hell if I know, it's matter of consistency is all. If the unborn is her property she can morally do whatever she wants to it, but if it is something different, like say its own being, then the moral equation is altered and she can not.

does a person have a moral obligation to give that clump of cells the best opportunity to survive once outside of the womb, I believe she does

does our society have an obligation to give that birthed child the best opportunity to survive once outside of the womb, I believe we do

But again, the view of the pro-choice crowd is that the unborn is hers and has no rights. How would society morally act upon a pregnant woman based on those principles?

 

[calamity]

yes this woman has control over her own body and may remove the clump of cells in a timely manner (12 weeks)

I did not mention anything about morality

if she does not choose to do so, and chooses to move forward with her pregnancy then she has made the choice to give birth

other than someone who is mentally limited why would she not protect that fetus?

do we force women to take supplements, no we do not, we instead attempt to educate them on the possible outcome of not doing so and the future harm it may cause

does a person have a moral obligation to give that clump of cells the best opportunity to survive once outside of the womb, I believe she does

does our society have an obligation to give that birthed child the best opportunity to survive once outside of the womb, I believe we do

Correct. She is also legally allowed to smoke cigarettes, even though we know that exposes the fetus to risks for deformities and low birth weight.

 

[calamity]

These limits on abortion interest me greatly. We start from the idea she control her body and can abort, but then something happens in peoples minds and walls are built at different stages depending on the person. The woman hasn't gotten to the point where she still isn't in control, but bam, no more abortion for her. Weird logic where two opposing principles collide and merge as one. I guess my way of thinking rejects those kind of conclusions because I honestly can't make sense of it.

I see it as being based on the fact that before 12 weeks, a fetus is nowhere near a sentient being. It's really not one until about 24 weeks, but seems most people prefer to limit abortion on demand at 12. I'm OK with that.

Hell if I know, it's matter of consistency is all. If the unborn is her property she can morally do whatever she wants to it, but if it is something different, like say its own being, then the moral equation is altered and she can not.



But again, the view of the pro-choice crowd is that the unborn is hers and has no rights. How would society morally act upon a pregnant woman based on those principles?

As we see above, the unborn starts to receive some rights at week 12. So, your statement is false.

 

[Henrin]

I see it as being based on the fact that before 12 weeks, a fetus is nowhere near a sentient being. It's really not one until about 24 weeks, but seems most people prefer to limit abortion on demand at 12. I'm OK with that.

As we see above, the unborn starts to receive some rights at week 12. So, your statement is false.

Why would it being at a certain week change the underlying principles laid out for the basis of the position? It's merely adding another principle on top that wouldn't logically matter to the base principle.

But fine, at a certain stage depending on the pro-choice individual the base principle is eliminated even if the condition for it still stands. I don't see how this is morally consistent at all.