Traduweise : I like this topic and it caught my eye again.

You are correct, the woman's right to bodily sovereignty is not "forfeit", as I originally put it. However, rights can be "trumped" (idea taken from a political philosopher named Dworkin).

If I commit a crime, and the police do not obtain a warrant before searching my home, the fact that they broke my rights "trump" my guilt.

If I am stopped at a light when the light turns green, yet there is still a lady in front of me in the cross walk, regardless of her illegal street crossing, her presence trumps my right to go through the intersection on the green.

If a lady is pregnant, and wants an abortion, the child's rights trump the lady's because the child's presence trumps her desire to end pregnancy.

A democratic nation (we're a technically a republic, but lets not get off topic) is owned by the people. Popular sovereignty and all. The white supremacists can claim ownership of the nation, as can blacks and Hawaiians and many others. They are not full owners, obviously, but all citizens of a democracy, in a sense, "own" their nation.

You do own your body. And at pregnancy, a child also owns your body for several months. You have no right to force the child out of it's home.

"I do not have to sacrifice my well-being to save someone else."

Your right to "well-being" is greater than another's right to life? Now who's inexplicable and nonsensical...

Txgangsta : You don't have the "right" to go through that intersection on the green. Regardless of whether or not driving is a right, driving on state roads is a privilege that can be revoked if abused. Holding a driver's license is not a right, and since most of this seems to revolve around the US, here is a relevent case on the matter.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

If a woman is pregnant, she doesn't have a child. She has a zygote or fetus. This fetus is not legally considered a person, and as such, does not have the usual rights. It most certainly does not "own" your body, at least in this reality. Even if it were considered a person, it would still not have the right to use her body against her will any more than I have the right to take one of your kidneys if mine fail.

There are no truly democratic nations in the world. What we have are constitutional democracies. That means that a set of constitutional laws and rights will always be in effect, regardless of what the majority wants. This is to prevent tyranny of the majority, as you have described it. Even if the majority of people in the US wanted blacks deported to Africa, they wouldn't be able to do so legally, because this would violate the constitution. You have a great deal of learning to do before you can start arguing on matters of legality.

Traduweise :

"If a woman is pregnant, she doesn't have a child."

Certainly you don't believe that the woman magically turns into a mother during childbirth... 

"This fetus is not legally considered a person, and as such, does not have the usual rights."

Laws do not create human beings.

"Even if it were considered a person, it would still not have the right to use her body against her will any more than I have the right to take one of your kidneys if mine fail."

You do not own my body so you cannot demand one of my kidneys (although I'm plenty healthy and if you really could not find another person, I'd give it to you). The zygote/fetus/whatever-classification-we-want-to-give-it owns the woman's body just as much as the woman owns her body. Mutual ownership. The child owns the whole thing. The woman owns the whole thing.

"There are no truly democratic nations in the world. What we have are constitutional democracies. That means that a set of constitutional laws and rights will always be in effect, regardless of what the majority wants. This is to prevent tyranny of the majority, as you have described it. Even if the majority of people in the US wanted blacks deported to Africa, they wouldn't be able to do so legally, because this would violate the constitution.

Off subject. I didn't want to get into government types, I just wanted to explain my analogy.

"You have a great deal of learning to do before you can start arguing on matters of legality."

I'm not arguing about the law. I know the law doesn't recognize the fetus as a person until birth (in most scenarios). I'm arguing about reality. The law does not match reality. The zygote/fetus/whatever-classification-we-want-to-give-it is a human individual and we must treat it with the same dignity that I would treat anyone else (and attempting to force blacks back to Africa is also not treating them with the dignity that they deserve).

However, I'll take your small insult and fold it and return it. First, American founding fathers created the constitution as a way of limiting the individuals within the federal government, not to prevent tyranny of the majority. Those same founding fathers actually hated democracy and created a republic where only wealthy, white, men could even cast a vote. They actually structured one option of the amendment process so that the majority could change the constitution without need for it to go through the federal government at all (albeit that has never been done). Therefore, if two thirds of state legislatures demanded a national convention for forcing blacks back to Africa and then three fourths of state legislatures passed it, the amendment would be completely legal and congress, the president, and the supreme court could legally do nothing to stop it.

You have a great deal of learning to do before you can start arguing on matters of legality.

Txgangsta :

All this stuff on mutual ownership is backed by what, exactly? You've invented a standard for the sole purpose of fitting your pre-concieved notions on childbirth. It's utterly arbitrary and makes no sense. The legal status of personhood is not just some fleeting notion dreamt up some judge after a late night of heavy drinking. Being a person gives one a set of rights, but also a set of responsibilities. It's part of the Social Contract. I have the right not to have my body used by someone who needs an extra kidney, but I also have the responsibility not to use someone else's body should I need spare organs. Personhood is a two-way street, and a fetus is not even capable of sentience. It certainly cannot fulfill the responsibilities that are required if you are to give it ownership of so much as a pair of socks, to say nothing of another human being.

You insist on reality, well that is reality. Not the arbitrary set of standards you've set out of convenience. You have an opinion, and nothing more. As for your founding fathers, I am Canadian, and thus don't know or care much about them. Tyranny of the majority is a concept that dates back to ancient Greece. Regardless of what the American founding fathers may have intended, constitutions are used to guarantee rights. This is in the face of mob-rule as well as government tyranny. That doesn't mean that constitutions cannot be amended. But you'll notice that if they are, it's by the government, not the people. Referenda on constitutional matters are pretty rare, and even if passed, still require the government to actually make the change.

And I am well aware that this thread is not about government types. You used an analogy. I explained why your analogy is wrong. Abortion is not analogous to deporting people to Africa. Period.

Traduweise :

Have you not backed the "right to bodily sovereignty" on your own predisposition towards autonomy?

I deny social contract. Rousseau, Locke, and the lot of them are wrong. Responsibility exists prior to intersubjective agreement. Therefore, the contract (such as a constitution) is simply a written recognition of already existing responsibilities (rights inherent to people regardless of social contract). They are not the total amount of responsibilities nor do they grant personhood. Whether the recognized contract is followed or not, the personhood still exists and we should treat people as people.

If you have ever read Rousseau, you'll find how much of a fascist he is and how autonomy disappears under social contract.

Sentience does not equal personhood. Personhood begets sentience. Cannot reason causes from their effects.

I do not claim that the zygote/fetus/whatever-classification-we-want-to-give-it owns the woman, but it owns the woman's body with the woman, together, mutually. This is because the zygote/fetus/whatever-classification-we-want-to-give-it is a person (regardless of recognition) and temporarily needs the woman for survival. We (humanity, including the mother) owe the zygote/fetus/whatever-classification-we-want-to-give-it its own already-existing rights.

I do think it's wrong but I feel like people can do what they want. Basically I would highly be thinking about it if I was 12 and my uncle/father impregnated me. A lot of people have opinions this is just mine. I wouldn't want to kill my baby but I wouldn't want to have it and it suffer it's whole life and die because of Birth effects from your father/uncle who did this to you.



Bintsy<33

Txgangsta : Right to bodily sovereignty is guaranteed by virtually every constitution in the world. It's even part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights under right to life, liberty, and security of person. You may not like Rousseau, but his writings were extremely influential in shaping ideas and policies that are implemented in western nations to this day. The social contract is a metaphor. There are certain responsibilities you have, such as paying taxes and not breaking laws. In return, you are granted rights and privileges by the government. Personhood is a legal recognition, but yes, personhood does exist beyond the law. You think that personhood begets sentience? A fetus is not even sentient, to say nothing of a zygote. Sentience is overrated. Heck, an earthworm has sentience. I see no reason to extend personhood to something that is not even capable of thought.   But that's all subjective. Everyone's definition of a person will differ, so it's pointless to argue over that.

And what's with these pointless attacks on people? First I bring up constitutional rights and you rant about how much you hate the US founding fathers. Now I mention the social contract, and your response is that Rousseau was a fascist? Both ridiculous and irrelevent. Facism didn't exist in Rousseau's time, and Rousseau's beliefs were not fascist. And even if he were, that wouldn't invalidate anything he said, though it doesn't actually matter since I'm not referencing him.

Anyway, you're just a broken record now. I've already explained that the fetus doesn't own anything. It may need the mother for survival, but she is under no obligation to preserve it.

Traduweise :

"Right to bodily sovereignty is guaranteed by virtually every constitution in the world. It's even part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights under right to life, liberty, and security of person."

Man-made constitutions and declarations do not always reflect reality. While I do says there is a right to bodily sovereignty, there are other rights that can trump that right, such as the right to life.

"I've already explained that the fetus doesn't own anything."

You've only declared that "the fetus is not a person and can't own anything". When I challenged "fetus is not a person", you said it needs to be sentient. To quote exactly,

"Personhood is a two-way street, and a fetus is not even capable of sentience. It certainly cannot fulfill the responsibilities that are required if you are to give it ownership of so much as a pair of socks, to say nothing of another human being."

I countered with "sentience does not equal personhood", you now say, "Heck, an earthworm has sentience." You have flip-flopped.

What is your grounding for personhood?

Personhood is certainly not limited to sentience, as you have already pointed out that earthworms are, in a sense, sentient. When I say that "personhood begets sentience", it does not mean immediately. Eventually. Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, and Mill (especially Mill) and the rest of the popular modern philosophers would link personhood to function, as you are doing and why I have been bashing philosophers (US founding fathers are basically Lockean clones, I think this conversation is leading towards Utilitarianism, so Mill is next). However, the other option is to link personhood to essence, nature, unity, or organization (all mean roughly the same thing).

A person is a person due to organization of genetic code, not due to function. A mental kid has full personhood because his genetic code, even if flawed, screams "homosapien". However, if I were to chop off his head, he has lost the necessary organization to be a person. I killed him, so now he's just a body.

Equally, the zygote/fetus/whatever-classification-we-want-to-give-it (yes, I'll keep using that term) is a person because it has the organization.

Only slightly off topic, if chimps were to develop slightly different organization, they too would be persons.

"It may need the mother for survival, but she is under no obligation to preserve it."

If it is not a person, she is under no obligation to preserve it. It (although gender is already determined) is a person, and therefore both mother, father, doctor, and the entire society have an obligation to preserve it.

Txgangsta : This is a convoluted mess, and your intentionally misreading my statements isn't helping. Capacity for sentience does not define personhood, but it is required for it. What defines a person is dependent on your country's laws. Off the top of my head, I personally would consider a person any being with the capacity for understanding and interpreting the world with intuition. This leaves the door open for non-humans including, theoretically, computers, but certainly not fetuses. So, yes, a degree of function is required. Rousseau, Locke, and Mill might well agree with me here, although Descartes argued that a soul is what separates a human from an animal.

DNA does not define a person; otherwise, nearly every cell in my body would be a human being, and the earth's population would rise drastically. That handicapped kid is a person because he can still meet the requirements for personhood, even with his handicap. By your definition, even after cutting off his head, he still has human DNA so he is still a person. It also does not allow for something that could meet the criteria for personhood without having DNA, like a computer, or extra-terrestrial life form. Perhaps not something we are familiar with now, but possible in theory. I don't see a person as being the same as a human being.

Finally, even if it is a person, nobody is obligated to sacrifice herself in order to preserve its life. A right to life is not a right to life at the cost of someone else. We may or may not have some esoteric obligation to help each other, but only to a point. My bodily sovereignty is in effect, and if you want to give me some utterly arbitrary rule such as 'all of society is obligated to preserve human life', then I can sure as hell give my own arbitrary rule. The only difference is, my arbitrary rule is also a fundamental rule of law recognized around the world. It has backing, both by me, and by humanity. I have yet to see you back your rules up.

Traduweise:

I have a bad habit of thinking people can read my mind... That last post I tried to make as short as possible while still communicating my idea. I failed.

Your right, DNA itself does not define a person. Like I said, organization does. In human beings, DNA is organized very specifically. While small alterations do not change species (otherwise each individual could be considered its own species), there is some type of organization required to make an individual. A rock is not an individual. A plant is. The argument is over what makes a person. Human being DNA is one type of thing that can make a person. If the DNA is different, it may be another species that are also persons, but not necessarily. Also, DNA is not required for personhood, so yes, technically, robots or some extra-terrestrial with no DNA can also be persons.

However, since organization is what is required, if I chopped someone's head off, I have destroyed the organization. The zygote can be considered a fully organized human individual (regardless of personhood) because that single cell, by virtue of being totipotent, has everything it needs. A fully grown human being (and most fully grown life forms), by contrast, doesn't have totipotent cells (although many cells are pluripotent). A man without a head has less than the zygote floating around. The man without a head is just a body.

The part that boggles my mind is what you've said twice now, "Finally, even if it is a person, nobody is obligated to sacrifice herself in order to preserve its life." First, I'm not asking the woman to kill herself or anything like that. The "sacrifice" is time, effort, and money. This is what I demand from all parents. Until there is the technology to remove the 1 month old fetus from her womb and move it into some sort of artificial womb or into a segregate mother, the woman is the only one who can?care for the fetus. If I were to assume social contract like you were hypothesizing fetal personhood, how would the fetus not fall under that social contract? The first thing on the social contract is right to life, and this hypothesized person is part of the society. The primary purpose of government is for the protection of life, both from outside and inside. If we can't have any sort of guarantee on life, then there is no point to any and all other points of a social contract.

I actually think that social contract theory makes all rules arbitrary, which is why I don't think it is valid. However, right to life trumps right to bodily sovereignty. Take the scenario of some highly-contagious incurable disease, like the black plague was for years, but put it into today's government. Think swine flu, but higher death rate. Your right to bodily sovereignty would say that if you want to catch the disease, you're allowed. It's your body and you can do what you want. However, that would totally not be allowed. The more people that have the disease, the more likely it is to spread. That right to bodily sovereignty has been trumped by another's right to life.

Txgangsta :

Your argument doesn't work for other life forms the way you think it does. Organization is extremely important in humans, in fact, in all animals. They need to follow a very specific blueprint during development, or there will be serious problems. Just one extra chromosome will lead to a serious mental handicap. On the other hand, a plant may be an individual, but its organization is not so strictly defined. Many plants are polyploid, which wouldn't be possible with an animal. Organization is less important to a plant. Virtually all people, nay all tetrapods, have limbs coming out at the same places. Being born without this specific organization is a serious impediment. On the other hand, you'll never see two trees, even of the same species, with branches growing out at exactly the same spot. It's similar for fungi. Polyploidy is both possible, and often encouraged, and interbreeding between species is commonplace. In other words, organization is an animal specificity, not an individual specificity. DNA is just a blueprint, like a blueprint to a house. It is not the house itself.

Now after all this, how you can call a zygote a fully organized human individual is confusing. It is not fully organized, otherwise it would not still be developing. It does not even have a brain, much less a head. It has very little of what it needs and relies on the mother to protect it, nourish it, and recycle its wastes. It may be alive, but it's not much else.

Pregnancy is a fairly large sacrifice. It's extremely unpleasant to go through, painful at the end, and can have long term health consequences. No woman who does not wish to go through it should have to. This is what you demand from all parents? Clearly if the woman wanted to be a parent, she wouldn't be getting the abortion. Some get an abortion because, although they wish to eventually be parents, they are not capable of it immediately. It would be highly irresponsible to bring into the world, a child for whom the mother cannot properly care for. And this doesn't even take into account women who get an abortion because they have genuine medical conditions and may even face death if they continue with the pregnancy.

The fetus or zygote does not fall under the social contract because the social contract requires awareness. It's a contract that one signs (metaphorically), and a fetus doesn't have the capacity for that. In fact, I don't even think it applies to children; adults only. Maybe some of the more mature teenagers. Right to life, as I keep saying, does not guarantee right to life at someone else's expense. Sorry. You don't have the right to make someone else suffer so you can stay alive. That's nobody's obligation.

Now for your very odd swine flu example. If you want to catch this disease, that's your decision. But what you cannot do is spread the disease around to other people. So if you caught the disease, you would have to either quarantine yourself or be quarantined.

In short, you still no argument that a woman needs to sacrifice her own well being to ensure birth. Every post you make you insist that we have some vague societal obligation, but you have yet to justify this, and you have yet to explain why a woman needs to put herself through the ordeal of pregnancy to satisfy your sense of morality.

I do not agree with abortion, because if you sre doing something to get pregnant, you should be able to face the consequences.

im gonna answer this question very short abartion should be allowed for some cases like a girl got raped and is pregnant it should not be allowed for children who try to act like and adult and have sex and then got pregnant . If someone doesnt think it in the same way then please reply on this or message me i like to have discusions

tgags123 : right we should women from doing this its like do you even care about this new life that could make a difference in the world if you had let them get a chance instead of just not wanting the poor child you shouldn't kill innocent babies who make you life better and help you learn what your parents had done for you. your parents let you live because they wanted you and to love you and when they thought you would share your love with your own child you just dissapoint them by killing it off like  it was nothing so we should stop it no more abortion it isn't right

Okay, I don't agree with the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

I believe abortion is wrong that one is killing a living organism that has already been brought into being. So I'm "pro-life".
On the topic of legalization, a baby will deprive a mother of freedom and income, perhaps unfairly if rape was involved. So I can't honestly say that this moral wrong should not be a choice, so I support Roe v Wade. So I'm "pro-choice".

It's possible to be both. 

I think it's wrong. People just don't want to live with the consequences of their bad choices, so they convince themselves that the thing growing inside them isn't a human, and commonly compare it to a tumor and stuff like that. (The tumor analogy is totally incorrect by the way. They don't even get the science right.) If you don't want a baby, you shouldn't have done that stuff. A baby doesn't deprive anyone of anything, besides probably alcoholism, and a partying lifestyle.

Hi. Yes I agree abortion is wrong and she only be used if the woman and child are both in danger. A fetus is a human being. Despite what doctors say. Fetuses can live outside of the womb with today's technology even at 22 weeks. Some doctors have said a fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks. If you see ultra sounds at 18 weeks the fetus has its arms and legs and nerve connections. So it if has nerve connections it can feel pain. So to sum it up Abortion is murder 

tornadocam : Just because there are nerve connections within the arms and legs at 18 weeks, doesn't mean that it feels pain, pain is perceived in the brain. At 18 weeks, thalamocortical connections(those that relay sensory information) in the brain haven't been established yet. That's why the consensus(among neurobiologists) is that pain cannot be felt until at least the 23rd-24th week of development.

Not only can it not feel pain, it has no ability for awareness of the situation. In cases of anencephaly, where the functional brain(neo-cortex/frontal lobe) never develop, mothers are not criticized for terminating the pregnancy. a 20 week old fetus has the same mental awareness, and perception of pain as in a fetus that never develops it.