Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Atavachron wrote: Epignosis wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ to the extent that a fetus's rights supersede a woman's rights is where the issue seems to be; the question is then why would an unborn person's rights supersede an already born person's rights.  The reasonable answer, IMO, must be that it does not. A born child supersedes a woman's rights.  Yet by law the latter cannot kill her. I assume you mean the former cannot kill her.  But does, or should, a born child's rights supersede an unborn child's rights, and if so, why would a born woman's rights not also?

No, I meant what I said.  A mother must tend to a born child.  Born children would die without attention.  But a mother cannot kill her child on the basis of "She's infringing on my rights."

(I think it's neat how changing the gender of this hypothetical child to a girl made you think I was incorrect in my wording. )

Epignosis wrote: Atavachron wrote: Epignosis wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ to the extent that a fetus's rights supersede a woman's rights is where the issue seems to be; the question is then why would an unborn person's rights supersede an already born person's rights.  The reasonable answer, IMO, must be that it does not. A born child supersedes a woman's rights.  Yet by law the latter cannot kill her. I assume you mean the former cannot kill her.  But does, or should, a born child's rights supersede an unborn child's rights, and if so, why would a born woman's rights not also? No, I meant what I said.  A mother must tend to a born child.  Born children would die without attention.  But a mother cannot kill her child on the basis of "She's infringing on my rights." (I think it's neat how changing the gender of this hypothetical child to a girl made you think I was incorrect in my wording. )

^ No I considered that and simply chose one, but I see what you're saying now.  However my question wasn't really addressed; you're correct a mother cannot kill her newborn on the basis of 'shes infringing on my rights' as a newborn, but how is it that an unborn child has rights over any fully birthed and living person, whether that person is an adult or a newborn child itself ?

Atavachron wrote: Epignosis wrote: Atavachron wrote: Epignosis wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ to the extent that a fetus's rights supersede a woman's rights is where the issue seems to be; the question is then why would an unborn person's rights supersede an already born person's rights.  The reasonable answer, IMO, must be that it does not. A born child supersedes a woman's rights.  Yet by law the latter cannot kill her. I assume you mean the former cannot kill her.  But does, or should, a born child's rights supersede an unborn child's rights, and if so, why would a born woman's rights not also? No, I meant what I said.  A mother must tend to a born child.  Born children would die without attention.  But a mother cannot kill her child on the basis of "She's infringing on my rights." (I think it's neat how changing the gender of this hypothetical child to a girl made you think I was incorrect in my wording. ) ^ No I considered that and simply chose one, but I see what you're saying now.  However my question wasn't really addressed; you're correct a mother cannot kill her newborn on the basis of 'shes infringing on my rights' as a newborn, but how is it that an unborn child has rights over any fully birthed and living person, whether that person is an adult or a newborn child itself ?

I don't see the relevance of being born.

Before birth, you're alive and inside the womb and  dependent on someone else.

After birth, you're alive and outside the womb and dependent on someone else.

The only thing that changes is your physical position.

Sean Trane wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: [So you see Sean, things are not black or white what is right in USA is wrong in other parts of the world, and  our constitution gives rights to the fetus from the moment of CONCEPTION. Iván       so a foetus is an individual, according to you??? according to common sense (which is a notion not too clear to the christian church that dictates unilaterally  its very dubious "morals" to the Peruvian state and laws), the only individual is the owner of body giving life support   PS: don't bother answering  >> I'm not even the one that said what you quoted   but let's not this alter our virtual friendship

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 20 2012 at 09:16

Epignosis wrote: I don't see the relevance of being born. Before birth, you're alive and inside the womb and  dependent on someone else. After birth, you're alive and outside the womb and dependent on someone else. The only thing that changes is your physical position.

The only substantial difference is that the unborn child is an abstraction while the born child is a thing. I think emotionally this affects people.

The T wrote: There should be some principle higher than any country's laws that can guide decision on these matters... I mean, so the same fetus that is an individual in Peru after he's been conceived becomes just a blob of cells in other countries... while the actual being inside the woman is exactly the same.

Atavachron wrote: Negoba wrote: It's not enough to say it's ok to kill the child in my book. And the Roe court also thought not. Interestingly, they said if the woman could just as easily get the baby out alive as dead, then there was absolutely no reason to abort and therefore regulations after viability were ok.  This is a highly dubious thing to say; I'd like to see the paperwork on that, and I suspect what "they said" - as you so casually put a US Supreme Court statement - is not exactly as you interpret it.   Now the logical question after that is...can a woman demand an induction or C-Section 2 months early? The answer is no, or at least no obstetrician I've even met would allow this. I don't believe there is any law prohibiting this practice however. Who are you to assume anything about anyone?  You make leaps of faith and presumption and then you draw a bizarre conclusion to support your tenuous position.   Sell wacko somewhere else.   This just goes to show that the law is extremely inconsistent. It goes to show your argument is extremely inconsistent with reality.   The number of abortion advocates who truly have delved into the issue are few, probably fewer than the number of abortion opponents who base their views on common morality rather than a religious mandate. In other words abortion opponents are more ethical and virtuous than supporters, based on.. what..speculative fantasies?   This is a pompous statement utterly lacking in evidence, careful thought, and most important, significance.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The T wrote: There should be some principle higher than any country's laws that can guide decision on these matters... I mean, so the same fetus that is an individual in Peru after he's been conceived becomes just a blob of cells in other countries... while the actual being inside the woman is exactly the same.  Sorry T, but this supra national courts are an aberration, and follow the commands of the richest countries, for example: When Shinning Path was killing 140,000 Peruvians, USA, Great Britain and Sweden, were giving asylum to this CRIMINALS, the Supra National Courts forced us to pay money to this bloody assassins...The Red Cross told us that we couldn't send the Terrorists to the prison of Yanamayo (15,000 feet over sea level), because it was inhuman....But many of the countries respected by the Red Cross have death penalty and we don't.But after 9/11 things changed, the courts tend to be more restrictive with terrorism, because when this happened in small countries full of dirty indians, it wasn't a problem for them, 2'000,000 in Cambodia or 140'000 in Peru means nothing for them, but when something happens in USA, we have to follow their orders.. The same thing would happen here, they would force us to follow what USA and Europe believe about abortion and conception. Leave every country with freedom to make their own laws and decide what is right for us. Iván PS: I'm being a bit unfair, USA always cataloged Shining Path as a criminal terrorist} movement (They gave asylum to some terrorists though), but in many Europe countries, they even give money to this criminals.

I was far from proposing supranational legislation. I think supranational organisms are usually a joke. I was talking more about a general view of the issue as one where superior principles than the law should be considered but of course is just is just a wish. In the end the different values of each society will actually determine what happens in each case. Remember Ivan I'm not one who believes that law is what determines what's right or wrong. But I know that, other than religion (of whom I'm not a big friend either) is difficult to find something that on a supranational level informs people's views about abortion and the beginning of life. But just as most if not all societies see murder as something bad, I'd love if there was some general moral consensus on how to approach the abortion issue. Wishful thinking of course.

Kill them all and let God sort them out?