Dependance on another person's body

[BigBlueBalls]

A pro-lifer's stance is supposedly fighting for a fetus to have the same rights as a human.

Well NEWSFLASH banning abortion isn't giving a fetus the same rights we have. No we'd be giving it MORE rights than anyone on the planet who's already been born. A fetus would be granted special rights, that I don't even have. It's not like I can force my mom to give me blood, say if she had the only blood type I needed to survive. If abortion was banned, then as a fetus I could legally force her to give me the food from her stomach, give me her oxygen, blood, anything from it that I need to survive. I'd own her body and she'd give up all rights over it to me as well. Only until after birth, then her rights over her body are returned to her. Who cares if I lost a lot of blood and only her blood provided would save me, nope she can refuse and say "go fuck yourself kid".

Say if a twin brother loses a lot of blood and is about to die. He needs his brother's blood to survive. His brother chooses not to give blood (for only selfish reasons) and he dies. Should we charge his brother with murder for not providing him access to his blood? Really it's similar to abortion. One life depends on another's choice as to what he's going to do with his own body. Just another analogy to a fetus' survival depending on what a mother chooses to do with her own body.

Therefore, the point that a fetus is a human is moot. If you want a fetus to have the same rights as a human already born, then the pro-choice argument would still win. That means, I don't have any rights over my mom's body now and I didn't when I was in her womb. Even if my survival today depends on what she's willing to provide from her body, it's still her choice whether she will provide it. It doesn't matter if I disagree with that choice or I feel it was a cold-hearted selfish decision, it's still her choice.

[FlurpMonkey]

Ya, I don't even give a crap about fetuses. If they are aborted no one will miss them and they won't know the difference because they'll be too dead and stupid like an infant to know anything at all.

[MrBibz]

Clearly, these fetuses are the most evil abominations ever to walk the earth. We must stop them before they take over the world!

BTW, good thoughts. I've never heard someone make a pro-abortion argument like this.

[fahrenheit]

We should arest all smoking pregnant mothers, and drinking pregnant mothers.
Infact, we should arest all parents that smoke because they knowingly endager their childs life.

And we should ban any person who is living in poverty, or cant support a child from having children. In the hospital the doctors clear the parents, and if the parent doesnt have a steady job, then the child gets sent to the nearest orphanarium.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 8/14/06 11:10 PM, D-Bibz wrote: BTW, good thoughts. I've never heard someone make a pro-abortion argument like this.

I don't think this should be considered a pro-abortion argument because I really don't support abortion at all. If a woman asked me what she should do, I'd suggest that she chooses against it because I really am against abortion. That's my personal opinion though. So in a way personally I'm pro-life, since I'd make pro-life decisions. Now politically I can be defined as pro-choice since I don't believe I have any right to choose what a woman does with her body. I mean I'm sure if I lost a lot of blood and if my mother's blood was the only blood that would save me, she'd do it in a heartbeat. Just as I'd do the same for my parents, but I still think that it is a choice whether we provide our own bodies to those who's survival may depend on it.

[Altarus]

Except you ignore the fact that the fetus can be removed from the woman's body and placed in an artificial womb. In that case, it continues to live, but is not dependent on the woman anymore. Therefore, its life is not truely dependent on the woman for its life in the first place. Thus, she can not choose when to end its life. At best, she can tell the state to remove it from her body and place it in an artificial womb where it will continue growing without using up her blood and other biological facilities.

Actually, to be honest, we do not really have a working artificial womb at the moment. From what I understand, they think they can do it, but have not tried because they are scared they will grow a freak. However, if the only other option is to kill the fetus, i.e., to kill a human being, then it seems that the fetus deserves any chance that we can give it.

One other option would be to transplant the child into a another woman's womb which I believe is possible right now. The only problem is that you have to find a volunteer.

In any case, this undercuts your argument because you assume that the woman's blood and other facilities are necessary for the child to continue living. This is not necessarily the case.

[Altarus]

Perhaps, we could say that having sex is consenting to let the child grow in your body long enough to put it up for adoption. If the person did not consent to the sex, we could look at the other options like finding a volunteer.

[rockizzy]

At 8/15/06 11:45 AM, Idyes wrote: Perhaps, we could say that having sex is consenting to let the child grow in your body long enough to put it up for adoption. If the person did not consent to the sex, we could look at the other options like finding a volunteer.

well, that doesnt work at all.
what if a person had sex using protection, like the anti baby pill or condoms or both or something different. then the person expected to be safe of pregnancy and therefore didnt consent to let a child grow in her body. but what if the pill didnt work or the condom broke? both can happen. then she gets pregnant without consenting to let the child grow in her body in the first place.
theres no way to prove whether or not someone consented in that way or not, so your idea doesnt work.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 8/15/06 11:45 AM, Idyes wrote: Perhaps, we could say that having sex is consenting to let the child grow in your body long enough to put it up for adoption. If the person did not consent to the sex, we could look at the other options like finding a volunteer.

That's it, I want you to provide credible links that a fetus can be transplanted to a new host and being carried to term after it had been implanted in the original mother's uterus. I have never, ever heard of this being done successfully. If this were the case, that it could be done, everyone holding the pro-life position would be shouting it from the roof tops.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 8/15/06 11:42 AM, Idyes wrote: One other option would be to transplant the child into a another woman's womb which I believe is possible right now. The only problem is that you have to find a volunteer.

In any case, this undercuts your argument because you assume that the woman's blood and other facilities are necessary for the child to continue living. This is not necessarily the case.

I've actually suggested that technologies like that might end the abortion debate, but right now it doesn't exist and a fetus removed from the womb is as good as dead.

[BeFell]

Don't we arrest people who refuse feed their children?

[C-Damage]

I'm sorry but thats just what pregnancy is like. If you don't like it keep your fucking legs closed.

[abacacus]

rapee cases, bitch!

[Orcinator]

theres also this

[BigBlueBalls]

At 8/16/06 04:57 PM, BeFell wrote: Don't we arrest people who refuse feed their children?

I knew this point would come up, that's why I said "I'm not talking about adult care". A child needs adult care, but not that of a parent and a parent doesn't legally have to take care of their kids if they choose not to. If the mother makes that choice during her pregnancy, then what makes that any different? Yes the fetus will die, but so will a child that may require her blood type to survive, in the event that they lose lots of blood. There's lots of ways we may need the body of a family member to survive in our lives, whether it's for them to donate an organ or blood, does that mean that legally they have to provide it because your survival depends on it?

I'm basically repeating myself, but the point is, when it comes to our own bodies, even if another human being requires it for survival, we still have the choice to refuse them what they need from it. Even if the choice might be wrong, even if we'd be shunned by the family for making the choice, we have that choice. I mean I don't think my mother would ever refuse to give me blood if I needed it, but legally there's nothing I can do to force her to provide that blood if ever I need it to survive and a fetus' rights are no different.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 8/17/06 01:05 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: A child needs adult care, but not that of a parent and a parent doesn't legally have to take care of their kids if they choose not to.

I was talking about foster parents here. Now I should have elaborated so I'm not running around in circles chasing Red Herrings. What I meant was that they legally can give their child away at birth anyway. Whoever chooses to look after the child, they are the ones legally held responsible.

Again I wasn't talking about adult care anyway because after birth anyone can look after a child, not just the mother. I was talking specifically about absolute dependance on another person's biological system, otherwise known as their body. Whether its blood or an organ or in the case of a fetus their entire body. Either way, nobody is legally binded to give up their body to someone else that depends on their body for survival.

[Altarus]

At 8/15/06 05:20 PM, rockizzy wrote: well, that doesnt work at all.
what if a person had sex using protection, like the anti baby pill or condoms or both or something different. then the person expected to be safe of pregnancy and therefore didnt consent to let a child grow in her body. but what if the pill didnt work or the condom broke? both can happen. then she gets pregnant without consenting to let the child grow in her body in the first place.
theres no way to prove whether or not someone consented in that way or not, so your idea doesnt work.

But sex is a high-risk activity for getting pregnant, even with protection. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that a pregnancy will result. With foreknowledge of this plausibility, the person having sex therefore consents to allowing the child to use her biological facilities in the event of a pregnancy.

It is like signing one of those waivers that you will not sue someone when engaging in high-risk behavior like sky diving. Dying or getting seriously injured is not the purpose, but it is a plausible outcome. Therefore consent beforehand is appropriate.

At 8/15/06 05:30 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: That's it, I want you to provide credible links that a fetus can be transplanted to a new host and being carried to term after it had been implanted in the original mother's uterus. I have never, ever heard of this being done successfully. If this were the case, that it could be done, everyone holding the pro-life position would be shouting it from the roof tops.

I heard it on a TV show. But, let me just ask this. If it is possible, does that change your position?

At 8/17/06 12:01 AM, abacacus wrote: rapee cases, bitch!

That is not an argument to allow abortion in non-rape cases though, only in rape cases. Since you apparently support abortion in non-rape cases also, you must assume full generality and proceed from there.