Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't often start my own threads, but this story has made me seriously angry, and I post it in response to all those who ask why it is that I, and others like me, term religion and irrational faith based beliefs as immoral and dangerous.

If I started off a discussion with you with an admitted, preconceived notion that you are irrational, immoral, and dangerous, I would expect nothing but hostility from you. And rightly so.

I'd say you're getting off pretty clean, if all you get from such an offensive mindset is people asking you "why."

Originally posted by googlefudge

I am of the opinion that persons have rights,...

Ok. explain how a foetus with no functioning brain is a person.

...for it is well understood, that we believe that the unborn child has also the right to life.

Apart from the fact that it is ridiculous to talk about giving 'rights' to a tiny unthinking bunch of cells. ...[text shortened]... the parent to undergo a life threatening operation to give part of their body to the child.

You write, "Ok. explain how a foetus with no functioning brain is a person."

Maybe you should be educated on what is a foetus (fetus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization. This article will discuss the etymology of the fetus and its development from weeks 9 to 38. The viability and fetal pain is also a concern. Circulatory system involving postnatal development and the differences from the adult circulatory system will be discussed along with the immune system. Developmental problems and legal issues are up for discussion as well.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I have never understood people who argue that the foetus has the right to life, yet simultaneously accept the mothers right to 'self determination'.
If the child was one day old, you would not so readily propose killing the child if the mothers life was in danger. Lets suppose a 1 day old child acquires an infectious disease and quarantine is no ...[text shortened]... we need some sort of sliding scale that measures its rights with respect to the mother risk.

I subscribe to the bodily rights argument.

Basically a person has absolute rights to decide what happens to their body.

While the unborn is inside someone elses body that person has the right at any time to
decide they are no longer prepared to have that embryo/foetus/ect inside their body and
have it removed.

If that 'kills' the embryo/foetus/ect then so be it.


For your question...

While we might expect from a moral perspective that a mother would/or perhaps should
risk their life for their child.
There is no law that says that any parent (or any person) should be REQUIRED to risk their
life to save another.


Pregnancy is a risk (getting an abortion, especially an early abortion is statistically vastly safer than
carrying the pregnancy to term) that we have no right to legally FORCE the mother to take.

You can give foetus's all the 'rights' you like, but they are always trumped by the mothers while it
is inside her body.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Pregnancy is a risk (getting an abortion, especially an early abortion is statistically vastly safer than
carrying the pregnancy to term) that we have no right to legally FORCE the mother to take.

You can give foetus's all the 'rights' you like, but they are always trumped by the mothers while it
is inside her body.

You haven't addressed my hypothetical scenario. If there is a situation where a child (or even an adult) poses a risk to someone else (mother or otherwise), and voiding that risk requires killing the other (or even simply allowing them to die), is the 'mothers' right always superior?
I just want to see if you really do carry your bodily rights argument over to anything other than pregnancy

Originally posted by twhitehead
You haven't addressed my hypothetical scenario. If there is a situation where a child (or even an adult) poses a risk to someone else (mother or otherwise), and voiding that risk requires killing the other (or even simply allowing them to die), is the 'mothers' right always superior?
I just want to see if you really do carry your bodily rights argument over to anything other than pregnancy

Sorry I thought I had addressed that.

A mother (or anyone) has absolute rights over what happens in, or is done to, their bodies.

So while the foetus is inside the mothers body she can remove it at any time for any reason
without regard to what that does to the foetus.

However once the baby is born, and is no longer inside the mother, it gets treated as a fully
fledged person with equal rights to the mother.

Now your hypothetical...

Lets suppose a 1 day old child acquires an infectious disease and quarantine is not an option
(the mother must keep feeding the child and doesn't have access to alternatives).
Would you support the mother killing the child in order to avoid risk to herself?

I think I need more detail in this hypothetical to know exactly what you are asking.

If you are asking "If a newborn is carrying a deadly disease, and for some reason the only way to
feed it is for the mother to breat feed, thus exposeing the mother to the deadly disease.
Can the mother be legally compelled to risk her own life to feed the baby?"

Then my answer would be that nobody can (or should be) legally compelled to risk their life for another.
(for normal citizens... might not apply to someone who's job entails or requires risking their lives for
others... but even then, the consequencies of refusal are generally looseing the job, not criminal charges)

The mother may well have a moral obligation to feed the baby, and might be expected to risk her life
to try to save it, but that is not the same as being leggaly required to do so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The mother may well have a moral obligation to feed the baby, and might be expected to risk her life
to try to save it, but that is not the same as being leggaly required to do so.

So, suppose the mother decides to kill her baby. Would that be murder?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, suppose the mother decides to kill her baby. Would that be murder?

If you kill a person who has been born then that is murder.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you kill a person who has been born then that is murder.

But not prior to birth. Suggesting there is something more than "absolute rights over what happens in, or is done to, their bodies" involved.
My only claim here is that people tend to be inconsistent when it comes to supporting abortion whilst simultaneously granting significant rights to the fetus.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But not prior to birth. Suggesting there is something more than "absolute rights over what happens in, or is done to, their bodies" involved.
My only claim here is that people tend to be inconsistent when it comes to supporting abortion whilst simultaneously granting significant rights to the fetus.

I'm not granting any rights to the foetus...

So your talking about someone else.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm not granting any rights to the foetus...

So your talking about someone else.

In the hypothetical we were. And yes, my initial argument was addressed to either people who do do so, or people who are discussing people who do do so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the hypothetical we were. And yes, my initial argument was addressed to either people who do do so, or people who are discussing people who do do so.

The hypothetical was talking about a baby not a foetus.

THE relevent difference, the dividing line, is that after birth a baby is No longer inside it's mother.

Once outside the mother then you treat it just like any other human with all the moral balancing that
goes on.

Prior to that, the mother gets to exercise full control over what happens inside her body irrespective
of any rights you do or do not grant the foetus.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Once outside the mother then you treat it just like any other human with all the moral balancing that
goes on.

Prior to that, the mother gets to exercise full control over what happens inside her body irrespective
of any rights you do or do not grant the foetus.

And my point is that if we do grant the foetus rights then you have not given a satisfactory argument as to why you differentiate the two situations. You say 'irrespective of any rights you do or do not grant the foetus' but in reality, you use a lack of rights for the foetus in your argument to support your stance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And my point is that if we do grant the foetus rights then you have not given a satisfactory argument as to why you differentiate the two situations. You say 'irrespective of any rights you do or do not grant the foetus' but in reality, you use a lack of rights for the foetus in your argument to support your stance.

I really don't use the lack of rights of the foetus.

My argument assumes you give the foetus full person-hood specifically to combat any
argument from religious morons who insist on treating a lump of meat like a person.


Perhaps I am not getting your 'hypothetical'...

Maybe you could outline it, and your reasoning, in more detail?

Originally posted by galveston75
No I wouldn't want a world like that either. It is true that left on the course we are on, it looks dismal. But that's where I have the hope of God coming back into the picture and helping us to live the life on earth he meant. Then things like population will be in his hands to direct.

That's a bet I refuse to make. 2100, no god coming, 2200, no god coming, 2300, humans go extinct. God goes, What the hell just happened?

No thanks.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Perhaps I am not getting your 'hypothetical'...

Maybe you could outline it, and your reasoning, in more detail?

Its very simple. Suppose a mother has a child that is totally dependent on her. The continued life of the child is a threat to the mothers life. If the mother kills the child to protect herself, is that morally equivalent to abortion? (Assuming a foetus has the same rights as a child after birth.)