|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 18, 2008 05:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I know, but I emphasis the fact they know the odds that the fetus will start to exist, and that these odds > 0(in most cases), regardless how long they were. So she could have avoided it for sure.
You're missing my point. I'm not talking about whether she could have avoided it or not. What I'm saying is that she does not want the fetus that is attached to her, so it is attached to her against her will.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 06:38 PM |
|
|
I do acknowledge that. But this situation is a result of her actions, she could have prevented that fact before, without killing anyone. So in my opinion she has no right to remove the fetus just because she does not want to have it.
Quote:
If you don't want to be pregnant and don't want the child you would easly compare it to a parasite.
Soo in my eyes, it's a part of the mom............
Parasites aren't parts of their hosts, definitely.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But this situation is a result of her actions, she could have prevented that fact before, without killing anyone.
True. But the fact is that it is attached to her against her will, so she has the right to remove it.
Quote:
So in my opinion she has no right to remove the fetus just because she does not want to have it.
If you don't think that a fetus is human, then of course the mother has the right to remove it.
If you think that it's human, then it is attached to her against her will, and violating her personal rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I do acknowledge that. But this situation is a result of her actions, she could have prevented that fact before, without killing anyone. So in my opinion she has no right to remove the fetus just because she does not want to have it.
Quote:
If you don't want to be pregnant and don't want the child you would easly compare it to a parasite.
Soo in my eyes, it's a part of the mom............
Parasites aren't parts of their hosts, definitely.
Your certainly not getting my point.......... it's a lame comparision dam it.............
Parasites live of your body, soo does a baby for 9 months. That is the comparision, and besides it depends on whoever is readings logical assosiation too........
If you got parasites in your blood, they are tecnically a part of your body that is VERY unwanted. However they are not physically in direct connection with your body either, they are just living of your body to the limit.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you think that it's human, then it is attached to her against her will, and violating her personal rights.
At her choice, not the fetus'. So she can blame only herself and father. She made the fetus violate her rights. It could do nothing about it.
I find it utmostly unfair to kill the fetus for parents' irresponsibility and shortsightedness.
@del_diablo
I see that you perceive that when one being lives off another and inhabits it, that it is part of it.
I do not. If you inhabited, say, a giant something, fed on it's expense, you would definitely not consider yourself a part of it. And I doubt the host would consider its parasites to be a part of itself.
Besides the comparison between a fetus and a parasite is not that bad - technically, fetus parasites on the mother during pregnancy.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
She made the fetus violate her rights.
That isn't true. She didn't want the fetus. But it's violating her rights.
Quote:
I find it utmostly unfair to kill the fetus for parents' irresponsibility and shortsightedness.
I find it unfair to force something they don't want upon people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 07:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So in my opinion she has no right to remove the fetus just because she does not want to have it.
If you don't think that a fetus is human, then of course the mother has the right to remove it.
If you think that it's human, then it is attached to her against her will, and violating her personal rights.
Everything depends, lets say your making a company. You are female and the entire procces would totaly depend on you, if it becomes a succes it would support the entire local communety too.
However, you discover that you are pregnant in the middle of this project. And its a FAR way from being completed, the father is your last boyfriend that you just broke up with(accidental pregnancy, Permoid Controll pills did not work properly). However 8 weeks has not passed since you got pregnant, soo a abortion would still be possible the easy way.
Soo the question is:
Would you take aborting to continue the life you are creating?
Or would you give up your dreams and have to start over again with someting else after giving birth to the baby?
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 07:35 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 19:36, 18 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
She made the fetus violate her rights.
That isn't true. She didn't want the fetus. But it's violating her rights.
The situation is not a result of fetus' choice, but mother's. She took the risk, why other human should be allowed to be killed for that?
Quote:
Quote:
I find it utmostly unfair to kill the fetus for parents' irresponsibility and shortsightedness.
I find it unfair to force something they don't want upon people.
Like forcing the fetus to die? I forgot, you do not consider them to be human beings.
But I do, and so your argument brings nothing to the discussion for me.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 07:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
She made the fetus violate her rights.
That isn't true. She didn't want the fetus. But it's violating her rights.
The situation is not a result of fetus' choice, but mother's. She took the risk, why other human should be allowed to be killed for that?
You are forgettinh someting........ If she wants a baby then its not even dragged into abortion discussion unless the doctor sais its a high chance for permanent injury's or death upon giving birth.
Then this discussion is more about pregnancy caused accidental, or against the womens will.
Myself i think the: "I don't want to give birth if its a boy" or someting like that is making me sic...... If it actually got a good reason i'm not a person who sais anything against it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 08:33 PM |
|
|
http://mises.org/story/2568
Interesting argument, not entirely about abortion, and I'm not sure that I agree with it completely, but worth reading nevertheless.
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf
A summary of the above link:
Premises/axioms:
a. Self-ownership
b. Non-aggression principle
c. Remove trespassers in the gentlest manner possible
Argument:
1. As soon as the mother stops consenting the to foetus being inside of her, the foetus becomes a trespasser (ie. the foetus has initiated aggression, violating the mother's right to self-ownership and thus control of her body).
2. The mother has the right to remove the trespasser in the gentlest manner possible.
2.a. If the foetus is viable, then the gentlest manner possible would be to remove it and keep it on some form of life support.
2.b. If the foetus is not viable, the gentlest manner would be to terminate it.
Common objections:
a. "The mother and foetus formed an implicit contract to carry it to term" - the foetus did not exist at the time of the implicit contract (a contract formed through non-verbal conduct): it was the mother and father who were parties to the contract.
b. "This violates the non-aggression principle" - the non-aggression principle is against the initiation of force, and once the mother no longer consents to the foetus being there, the foetus is trespassing and thus initiating force.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 08:47 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 20:52, 18 May 2008.
|
@del_diablo
I'm not saying she wanted to have a child. But she was aware that conception can take place, and she still wanted to have sex. So the outcome is a result of her conscious actions, regardless of whether she likes it or not.
It was accidental as you say, del_diablo, but such an 'accident' could, and should, be anticipated.
Quote:
the foetus has initiated aggression
The fetus has initiated nothing. The fetus is in a state of complete inertia to the events, which it cannot do anything about, even if it wanted to.
Quote:
2.a. If the foetus is viable, then the gentlest manner possible would be to remove it and keep it on some form of life support.
Which is not possible under current technological level of humanity.
Once it is, I will not object, as the matter of my objection (fetus' death) will no longer occur.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 08:50 PM |
|
|
Yes, it is. We can put it on a breathing apparatus and insert a feeding tube. But that'll only work if it's viable. What if it's not?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 08:56 PM |
|
|
Under current technological level it endangers fetus' life, so should be avoided.
If it is not viable, it is murder again. Fetus did not take any action against the woman, and the state it is in is not a result of its actions. By no means should it be terminated for this.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@del_diablo
I'm not saying she wanted to have a child. But she was aware that conception can take place, and she still wanted to have sex. So the outcome is a result of her conscious actions, regardless of whether she likes it or not.
It was accidental as you say, del_diablo, but such an 'accident' could, and should, be anticipated.
ACtually........ you are WRONG...........
you are saying that if you drive a car that was just on service and the breaks suddenly don't work........ You crash, and break a few of your legs and maybe some friends that was in the car with you died.
Hence after you conclusion: Its the drivers fault, no matter what
Hope your fine with me useing your logic IMO! 
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:06 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 21:12, 18 May 2008.
|
In case of the breaks accident, it is me who is harmed, and I am forced by the situation itself to assume responsibility by having my legs broken, yes, if that's what you asked for.
If I have a guarantee from the serviceman in which he assures me that the braks won't fail, then he is to blame, not me.
But definitely not fractures of my bones, which are result of the situation.
But surely it IS A RESULT OF MY ACTION, at least partially.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In case of the breaks accident, it is me who is harmed, and I am forced by the situation itself to assume responsibility by having my legs broken, yes, if that's what you asked for.
Moving on, breaking your legs will only grant immobilety for a time periode.
Having a kid is 10x the trouble too....
First your appetite increase, then some parts of your body will notice it. Your boobs will hurt, your mood will most likely become completely unstable.
In the end, you will give birth causing insane pain along with the feelings for the kid.
However, what suddenly had the choice in the car accident just before it happend to avoid everything of the accident?
And somewhere in these lines, the idea of abortion lies.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:16 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 21:33, 18 May 2008.
|
Not really. In the accident there's only myself. In pregnancy there is another party involed: the fetus.
I believe it to be a human being, and as such, its rights should be weighted against mother's.
And I see no reason to value freedom of the mother higher than fetus' right to live.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not really. In the accident there's only myself. In pregnancy there is another party involed: the fetus.
I believe it to be a human being, and as such, its rights should be weighted against mother's.
And I see no reason to value freedom of the mother higher than fetus' right to live.
And i see no reason to be forced to destroy your life.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:51 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 21:59, 18 May 2008.
|
Even if eventually it will end up in someone killed?
The problem with abortion (if we consider fetus to be a human being and we value human life, otherwise there is no problem) is that whatever the legislation, someone will be harmed in the outcome. I am no idiot who fails to realize that woman may not want pregnancy or that it might cause severe unwanted repercusions in her future life.
I value (the right of) individual freedom below (the right of) existence, so it is logical for me to be against abortion, save for cases I mentioned before.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.
And unfortunatelly, our opinions collide and cannot be compromised in implementation  .
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fetus did not take any action against the woman, and the state it is in is not a result of its actions.
The fetus is on private property (the mother) without the owner's (the mother's) consent, thus the fetus is a trespasser. Trespassing is in of itself an initiation of force. The fact that it is unaware of its actions, or can't do anything about them, is irrelevant. For example, if you allowed a mentally retarded quadriplegic onto your property, but later revoked your consent, would they not be a trespasser? In this case does the property owner not have a right to remove the trespasser?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
