Will a European-style abortion law please pro-life voters?

[Aufan59 73]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well at least that’s one thing. 
 

Unless you give a child up for adoption via Safe Haven or otherwise, you give up your bodily autonomy (as well as other kinds of autonomy) whether the child is in the womb or out of it. You do not get to avoid these responsibilities in either situation and cause the death of another human being as a result. 
 

The problem isn’t the idea  the problem is that you aren’t actually arguing with consistency that both humans have equal rights. 

 

I’m glad, but the point is that we have parental duties to children even before they are born, not just after. 
 

You really aren’t and no I’m not.  

You’re creating straw men and distractions that have nothing to do with the point.  Why introduce an argument about a third party father assaulting a pregnant woman?  Or the mother ingesting illegal drugs that harm another person?  Irrelevant. 

Anyways, let’s distill the argument:

 -we agree that personhood and rights begin at conception

- we agree that a mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child via adoption and safe haven laws

- we disagree on when the mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child 
 

My argument: a person is never obligated to give up their bodily autonomy for another person.  For example, you aren’t legally obligated to donate a kidney to save your child’s life.  Likewise, you aren’t legally obligated to carry your child until viability.  
 

However once the baby is viable outside of the womb, abortion is obviously a violation of their rights.

 

It is as if viability is a great line in the sand to draw to respect individual rights?  If only they decided that like 50 years ago.
 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

53 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

You’re creating straw men and distractions that have nothing to do with the point.  Why introduce an argument about a third party father assaulting a pregnant woman?  Or the mother ingesting illegal drugs that harm another person?  Irrelevant. 
 

bull****. 

You argued about parental duties. I simply  pointed out that these parental duties begin long before the child is born.   passing through a birth canal is not what initiates them. 
 

53 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Anyways, let’s distill the argument:

 -we agree that personhood and rights begin at conception

- we agree that a mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child via adoption and safe haven laws

- we disagree on when the mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child

Actually, I would say that we don’t disagree so much on when but on how.  A woman can decide very early on she has no intention of being this child’s mother. She can begin the process of having someone adopt her child upon birth right then.

But you can’t decide not to feed the baby because it is a human person that is dependent upon you and/or others to live.  It is the right not to be killed that trumps all others.

 

53 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

My argument: a person is never obligated to give up their bodily autonomy for another person.  For example, you aren’t legally obligated to donate a kidney to save your child’s life.  Likewise, you aren’t legally obligated to carry your child until viability.  

However once the baby is viable outside of the womb, abortion is obviously a violation of their rights.

It is as if viability is a great line in the sand to draw to respect individual rights?  If only they decided that like 50 years ago.

And as I said, even outside of the womb, a mother is giving up bodily autonomy. So evidently there are cases where your bodily autonomy is not a greater right than the right for the child not to be killed through your direct action or neglect.  Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.  

[AUDub 11,158]

59 argues from the position of the right to evict. An extremely Libertarian position on the matter. 

[AUDub 11,158]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.  

Some would hold that it very much is. 

[Aufan59 73]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

bull****. 

You argued about parental duties. I simply  pointed out that these parental duties begin long before the child is born.   passing through a birth canal is not what initiates them. 
 

Actually, I would say that we don’t disagree so much on when but on how.  A woman can decide very early on she has no intention of being this child’s mother. She can begin the process of having someone adopt her child upon birth right then.

But you can’t decide not to feed the baby because it is a human person that is dependent upon you and/or others to live.  It is the right not to be killed that trumps all others.

 

And as I said, even outside of the womb, a mother is giving up bodily autonomy. So evidently there are cases where your bodily autonomy is not a greater right than the right for the child not to be killed through your direct action or neglect.  Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.  

You brought the point about parental duties in your second response to me.  Parental duties do not require one human using the body of another with no alternatives.  It is not a good comparison.

 

 

[Aufan59 73]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

59 argues from the position of the right to evict. An extremely Libertarian position on the matter. 

The stance has nothing to do with eviction.  It also applies to other situations that don’t involve eviction, for example a mother is not legally required to donate a kidney, blood or bone marrow to their child.  

The argument is that both mother and child are humans with rights.  No human is entitled to another person’s body.  There is no other example of this being true.  To posit that the baby has rights to the mother’s body is to posit they aren’t equal.

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

To posit that the baby has rights to the mother’s body is to posit they aren’t equal.

To posit that bodily autonomy means that one human being gets to kill another human being for it is to posit that they aren't equal either.  There are hierarchies of rights.  And the right for an innocent person not to be killed is paramount among them.  You're elevating your concept of bodily autonomy above everything.

[Aufan59 73]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

To posit that bodily autonomy means that one human being gets to kill another human being for it is to posit that they aren't equal either.  There are hierarchies of rights.  And the right for an innocent person not to be killed is paramount among them.  You're elevating your concept of bodily autonomy above everything.

This is a very loose definition of kill.  Have you killed every person that has died on the organ transplant list?

 

Refusing to let another human use your body so they can survive is not killing.  If I can’t deny the use of my kidneys, blood, bone marrow or womb to another person, they have more rights than I do.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

This is a very loose definition of kill.  Have you killed every person that has died on the organ transplant list?

An abortion isn’t analogous to that. 

 

[Aufan59 73]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

An abortion isn’t analogous to that. 

 

Why not?

Name one other situation where one person is entitled to use another person’s body.

[AUDub 11,158]

On 4/20/2024 at 1:54 AM, Aufan59 said:

The stance has nothing to do with eviction.  It also applies to other situations that don’t involve eviction, for example a mother is not legally required to donate a kidney, blood or bone marrow to their child.  

The argument is that both mother and child are humans with rights.  No human is entitled to another person’s body.  There is no other example of this being true.  To posit that the baby has rights to the mother’s body is to posit they aren’t equal.

 

The right to evict stems from the position that bodily autonomy is absolute and that no one should be forced to have it violated   

[AUDub 11,158]

18 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Why not?

This is a question that needs an answer, Titan. 59 cuts to the heart of the matter with it. 

Edited April 22 by AUDub

[Aufan59 73]

On 4/22/2024 at 4:28 AM, AUDub said:

This is a question that needs an answer, Titan. 59 cuts to the heart of the matter with it. 

I’d love a response or even a discussion, as I think I’m malleable on the topic.  For example I didn’t always concede that personhood starts at conception.  But it must, or else it is defined arbitrarily.  Arbitrarily based on how long after conception the person has been alive, or worse, based on the circumstances of conception, I.e. rape or incest.  
 

Agreeing that personhood starts at conception, then we’re talking about two people.  I don’t know of any other example where one person is entitled to use another person’s body without consent.  
 

So if the child is entitled to the mother’s body, with no recourse for the mother, that means one of two things:  the child has more rights than the mother; or the mother never really had rights to her own body to begin with.

 

I think Titan hints at the latter argument, that the woman really didn’t have such rights to begin with.  

On 4/20/2024 at 2:48 AM, TitanTiger said:

And as I said, even outside of the womb, a mother is giving up bodily autonomy. So evidently there are cases where your bodily autonomy is not a greater right than the right for the child not to be killed through your direct action or neglect.  Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.

I think to be fair, this is confounding bodily autonomy with legal obligation.  I am liable when I speed while driving, it is not a violation of my bodily autonomy to be able to press my foot against the gas pedal.  When I agree to become a driver I must follow the rules.

 

Likewise I am legally obligated to care for my child when I agree to being their legal guardian, this is not a violation of my bodily autonomy.  

Bodily autonomy is about having ownership of my body, not another person or the government.

 

Overall I think it is an interesting discussion.  As a small government conservative that believes in personal liberties, of course I believe in the right to bodily autonomy.  It might not be spelled out in the constitution, but it is certainly implied right.

 

That being said I am always open and interested in hearing the opinion of a big government liberal, who has an argument for government taking away our personal liberty.
 

 

Edited April 24 by Aufan59

[TitanTiger 20,499]

On 4/21/2024 at 2:31 AM, Aufan59 said:

Why not?

Name one other situation where one person is entitled to use another person’s body.

Sorry, we had both our kids home from college over the last week and one of them was dealing with some health issues, so I haven't been as active.  

That said, there are a few differences I can think of.

First, the dying person on the organ transplant list is a stranger to the person who is a match. We don’t have any (legal) obligations towards strangers, especially to perform actions that go above and beyond ordinary courtesy and kindness. However, a child who is growing inside a woman’s uterus is not a stranger. It is the mother's own son or daughter. The analogy fails because it assumes that a woman has no more obligation to her own child than she does to a random stranger. Parents have obligations to their own children that they don’t have towards total strangers and the government demands and enforces these obligations.

Second, an organ transplant involves an unnatural use of body parts, whereas pregnancy involves the natural use of them. A kidney inside your own body is designed to be used for your body. It was not made to be surgically removed and placed into another person’s body. That’s an artificial or unnatural use (and the ongoing doses of immunosuppressant drugs kinda points to this being true), even as good of an end result that the transplant is. This is not the case with being pregnant. When the mother is pregnant, the child growing inside her is in exactly the place where human beings are designed to gestate: a woman's uterus. That organ is the natural and proper organ to gestate another human being. There is nothing unnatural about it. It’s designed to provide physiological support for another human body, unlike your kidney, which is designed to provide physiological support for your body.

Third, in the organ transplant situation, the potential donor has not done anything that places the burden of a stranger’s health in their hands. They has nothing to do with the health crisis this stranger is in. It's a burden that has been imposed on them against their will. That’s not the case with a pregnancy (or at least 99% of them - see below). When a woman becomes pregnant, it is because she has voluntarily engaged in the very act known to cause pregnancy: sex. When you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. Obviously rape would be different, but that’s a different discussion altogether and only accounts for less than half a percent of all abortions (according to Planned Parenthood’s own data).

And finally, the organ transplant situation involves refusing to donate body parts to a stranger who has a terminal illness, while abortion is an intentional killing of a woman’s own healthy child. In other words, the former involves passively allowing someone who is terminal to die while the latter (abortion) involves the intentional and physical act of killing through chemical means or physical dismemberment of a healthy, non-terminal, human being. Put another way, though I may have right to refuse to donate my kidney to a dying patient, that doesn’t mean I have the right to shoot them in the head instead. Allowing someone to die is not morally equivalent to intentional killing.

I think all for the reasons above are good enough to point out important differences, though for me personal, #3 and #4 are the strongest ones making that point.

 

[Aufan59 73]

I appreciate the response, and I will respond to your points, but the question still remains, when else, aside from pregnancy, is one person entitled to use another person’s body?

 

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

First, the dying person on the organ transplant list is a stranger to the person who is a match. We don’t have any (legal) obligations towards strangers, especially to perform actions that go above and beyond ordinary courtesy and kindness. However, a child who is growing inside a woman’s uterus is not a stranger. It is the mother's own son or daughter. The analogy fails because it assumes that a woman has no more obligation to her own child than she does to a random stranger. Parents have obligations to their own children that they don’t have towards total strangers and the government demands and enforces these obligations.

A mother can give up all legal obligations to their child, and a person can adopt legal obligations of a stranger child.  The familial relationship is not what determines the legal obligation.  And even so, a familial relationship does not oblige use of the body, I don’t have the rights to my mom’s kidney.

 

As a side note, should we add unrelated surrogate mothers to the list of exceptions for abortion?

 

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Second, an organ transplant involves an unnatural use of body parts, whereas pregnancy involves the natural use of them. A kidney inside your own body is designed to be used for your body. It was not made to be surgically removed and placed into another person’s body. That’s an artificial or unnatural use (and the ongoing doses of immunosuppressant drugs kinda points to this being true), even as good of an end result that the transplant is. This is not the case with being pregnant. When the mother is pregnant, the child growing inside her is in exactly the place where human beings are designed to gestate: a woman's uterus. That organ is the natural and proper organ to gestate another human being. There is nothing unnatural about it. It’s designed to provide physiological support for another human body, unlike your kidney, which is designed to provide physiological support for your body.

In this case, use of another person’s body is acceptable if it is natural?  Would you accept forced donations of breast milk to feed the hungry?

 

As a side note, surrogate mothers again are an exception.  
 

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Third, in the organ transplant situation, the potential donor has not done anything that places the burden of a stranger’s health in their hands. They has nothing to do with the health crisis this stranger is in. It's a burden that has been imposed on them against their will. That’s not the case with a pregnancy (or at least 99% of them - see below). When a woman becomes pregnant, it is because she has voluntarily engaged in the very act known to cause pregnancy: sex. When you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. Obviously rape would be different, but that’s a different discussion altogether and only accounts for less than half a percent of all abortions (according to Planned Parenthood’s own data).

Consenting to sex is not consenting to third person being able to use your body.  Knowingly and intentionally becoming pregnant and giving birth does not obligate the mother to care for the child, as we’ve already established with adoption and safe haven laws.

 

But the bigger point is, why does consent of the mother matter?  Or in other words, when does a child of rape gain their rights not to be killed?

 

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And finally, the organ transplant situation involves refusing to donate body parts to a stranger who has a terminal illness, while abortion is an intentional killing of a woman’s own healthy child. In other words, the former involves passively allowing someone who is terminal to die while the latter (abortion) involves the intentional and physical act of killing through chemical means or physical dismemberment of a healthy, non-terminal, human being. Put another way, though I may have right to refuse to donate my kidney to a dying patient, that doesn’t mean I have the right to shoot them in the head instead. Allowing someone to die is not morally equivalent to intentional killing.

I think this is a fair point, but to clarify there is no such thing as a non-terminal person.  Someone’s life isn’t less valuable solely because they are going to die in the future.
 

For all intents, actively killing the person in the womb is the same as removing them from them womb and letting them die on their own.  The underlying point is the same, you are denying them use of your body.

 

 

 

We agree point 1 and 2 are weak, I don’t care to argue them much further.  Point 3 is interesting to me, but a non-starter as consent for sex or conception seems like a very arbitrary way to decide the rights of a person.

 

 

Point 4 is most compelling to me and actually gets to the question I have, what other situation does one person have the rights to use another person’s body?  What gives a person the right to use another person’s body?

Edited April 24 by Aufan59

[TitanTiger 20,499]

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

I appreciate the response, and I will respond to your points, but the question still remains, when else, aside from pregnancy, is one person entitled to use another person’s body?

Perhaps nothing.  But that's my point - pregnancy is a unique circumstance that isn't analogous to any of these other examples such as organ transplants.

 

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

A mother can give up all legal obligations to their child, and a person can adopt legal obligations of a stranger child.  The familial relationship is not what determines the legal obligation.  And even so, a familial relationship does not oblige use of the body, I don’t have the rights to my mom’s kidney.

A mother can relinquish the child - via Safe Haven drop-off locations (no questions asked), giving the child up for adoption, etc if they don't want to be a mother or feel unable to properly care for the child.  What they don't get to do is give up their obligations to the child by shooting them in the head, leaving them in the woods for wild animals to take, or letting them starve to death.

As I said, pregnancy is different.

 

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Consenting to sex is not consenting to third person being able to use your body.  Knowingly and intentionally becoming pregnant and giving birth does not obligate the mother to care for the child, as we’ve already established with adoption and safe haven laws.

Consenting to sex - the one human activity on earth we all know and understand is how one gets pregnant - is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.  

And as we've already established, the legal ability to give a child up for adoption is not the same thing as the legal ability to kill it.

 

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

But the bigger point is, why does consent of the mother matter?  Or in other words, when does a child of rape gain their rights not to be killed?

I get that this is an interesting side note and we can have another thread about the edge cases and abortion, but let's stick to the subject we've started on.

 

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

I think this is a fair point, but to clarify there is no such thing as a non-terminal person.  Someone’s life isn’t less valuable solely because they are going to die in the future.

I realize we will all die some day.  But the only reason the organ transplant recipient is in this discussion is because they have a terminal condition other than "just living."  A part of their body has ceased to function normally and without intervention they will die.  It wasn't a question of who is more valuable.  It's just to point out that there is nothing medically/physically wrong with the child in this scenario other than a third party doesn't want them.  And that one is a passive non-act toward a stranger who the potential donor has no obligations to while the other is a hostile active move to kill a healthy individual.

 

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

For all intents, actively killing the person in the womb is the same as removing them from them womb and letting them die on their own.  The underlying point is the same, you are denying them use of your body.

It's still an intentional act to kill another human being, which differentiates it from any of your transplant scenarios.

 

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

We agree point 1 and 2 are weak, I don’t care to argue them much further.  Point 3 is interesting to me, but a non-starter as consent for sex or conception seems like a very arbitrary way to decide the rights of a person.

We have all sort of legal precedent for a person being liable and responsible for actions they take that can predictably lead to certain outcomes.  Even if they didn't originally intend for a certain bad end result, they are still responsible and legally liable for it because it was a foreseeable and reasonable possibility.  It's not a non-starter to say the same of choosing to engage in sex knowing that making babies is one of the primary functions of sex in the first place.

 

13 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Point 4 is most compelling to me and actually gets to the question I have, what other situation does one person have the rights to use another person’s body?  What gives a person the right to use another person’s body?

Perhaps there aren't any others, but that's the entire point - pregnancy is a completely different animal.

[Aufan59 73]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Perhaps there aren't any others, but that's the entire point - pregnancy is a completely different animal.

I think this is the underlying point.  There is no comparison.

 

So my point remains, if abortion before viability is not legal, then the person in the womb has extra rights.  The right to use another person’s body, at the detriment of another person’s rights.

 

I’m not saying that this is wrong.  But it certainly is a new right with no similar cases.  A new right that needs to be established, not just assumed to be true.  It certainly contradicts “all men are created equal”.
 

This new right also has some questionable exceptions.  You might consider them edge cases, but I consider them very arbitrary reasons to revoke a right.  A person conceived without consent may not have these extra rights?  These rights are dependent on the action of a third party?  
 

While there are no examples of this extra right being granted anywhere else, there are many examples of the right to bodily autonomy being protected.  Even examples that result in the intentional death of another person.  For example I can kill someone who is actively kidnapping me.  
 

There are countless cases protecting our bodily autonomy, but none protecting a right to another person’s bodily autonomy.
 

I’m glad to hear more arguments why extra rights should be granted to a certain group of people at the detriment of others.  But for me to be convinced, these rights need solid footing, without arbitrary means of removal, and generally adhere to the concept that all men are created equal.  

 

Edited April 25 by Aufan59

[TitanTiger 20,499]

12 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

I think this is the underlying point.  There is no comparison.

 

So my point remains, if abortion before viability is not legal, then the person in the womb has extra rights.  The right to use another person’s body, at the detriment of another person’s rights.

No, your point contradicts itself.  The second one person has the right to kill another, the person initiating the killing has more rights.  And while "bodily autonomy" is certainly an important right, rights don't really get more important than the right not to be killed by someone else when you've done nothing to deserve it.

 

12 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

I’m not saying that this is wrong.  But it certainly is a new right with no similar cases.  A new right that needs to be established, not just assumed to be true.  It certainly contradicts “all men are created equal”.

We assume the right of the innocent not to be killed.  This doesn't need to be established.  It's a basic bedrock tenet of human dignity.

 

12 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

While there are no examples of this extra right being granted anywhere else, there are many examples of the right to bodily autonomy being protected.  Even examples that result in the intentional death of another person.  For example I can kill someone who is actively kidnapping me.  

Someone who is kidnapping you is not innocent and is an active threat to you. Considering what we know of people that kidnap others, there's a high likelihood that they will injure or kill you.  Killing them to escape this situation is not analogous to anything we're discussing.

 

12 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

There are countless cases protecting our bodily autonomy, but none protecting a right to another person’s bodily autonomy.

I’m glad to hear more arguments why extra rights should be granted to a certain group of people at the detriment of others.  But for me to be convinced, these rights need solid footing, without arbitrary means of removal, and generally adhere to the concept that all men are created equal.  

It's not "extra rights."  It's a hierarchy of existing rights.  Some rights are of higher importance than others.  The right of the innocent not to be killed outranks the right basically all other rights.  It's a pluperfect of example of a first order right.

[Aufan59 73]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No, your point contradicts itself.  The second one person has the right to kill another, the person initiating the killing has more rights.  And while "bodily autonomy" is certainly an important right, rights don't really get more important than the right not to be killed by someone else when you've done nothing to deserve it.

 

We assume the right of the innocent not to be killed.  This doesn't need to be established.  It's a basic bedrock tenet of human dignity.

 

Someone who is kidnapping you is not innocent and is an active threat to you. Considering what we know of people that kidnap others, there's a high likelihood that they will injure or kill you.  Killing them to escape this situation is not analogous to anything we're discussing.

 

It's not "extra rights."  It's a hierarchy of existing rights.  Some rights are of higher importance than others.  The right of the innocent not to be killed outranks the right basically all other rights.  It's a pluperfect of example of a first order right.

I still think that it is extra rights, as they have the right to use another person’s body.  There is no other example of this right being exercised and upheld.  It simply does not exist.

My point was not to equate kidnapping to pregnancy, or for you to explain to me that they are different, but to give a clear example of bodily autonomy being a right that is exercised even when intentional death of another is a consequence.  Bodily autonomy rights are well established and exercised in a variety of different ways.  

 

For me to better understand the rights that the person in the womb has:

If a woman does not kill the person in the womb, but instead has them removed and given the best available medical care, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?

 

If a woman is raped and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?  Or in a different example:  if the woman did not know sex could result in pregnancy and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?

Edited April 25 by Aufan59

[homersapien 11,396]

I say each to his own personal standards.

We are already seeing the consequences of letting the government - in the form of state legislatures - dictate it.

[1716AU 730]

I really appreciate the opportunity to read everyone's opinions. And I appreciate them all.

That being said, the "Pro-Life" moniker, especially from the religious right is quite laughable to me.  They don't believe it.  At all. And their actions show it loudly.

Very much the same regarding evangelicals and their belief in Hell.

If they really believed in Life, they would do anything and everything they could to protect it.  But they don't. They pay lip service to it and use it as a tool to make themselves feel better, or to hold power over those that do not or cannot deal with these issues cognitively. 

There is the greatest hypocrisy in this WHOLE debate. Falwell and Schaffer got what they wanted...

[Aufan59 73]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Sure it does.

Siamese twins.  One twin cannot have separation surgery if it will kill the other twin without the 2nd twin's consent.  If one did it anyway without consent, definitely the doctor who performed the procedure and possibly the surviving twin would be charged with murder.

Good point, I didn’t think of that example.  Though I don’t know of any case where this has been an issue or been challenged, at least in the US.

Edited May 1 by Aufan59

[Aufan59 73]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I don't think it has, and the reason I don't think it has is because it would be unconscionable and therefore wouldn't occur to anyone to do it.

And yet the only difference between it and abortion is that the Siamese twin is easier to identify with.  The twin talks, reasons, and looks like us.  The unborn human doesn't, so it's harder for people to emotionally identify with.

The problem with allowing that sort of dynamic to play out is that every atrocity committed against minorities throughout history was facilitated by convincing the masses that the minority "wasn't like the rest of us."  In Nazi Germany they convinced the population that Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc. were subhuman.  Same with chattel slavery around the world.  Black people didn't look or talk like Europeans and Central Americans, so they were subhuman.  The human's property rights superseded any of the subhuman's rights.

The only justification for killing unborn humans at will is the same justification.  They are undeveloped, so they are subhuman and the bodily autonomy rights of the mothers supersedes the subhuman's right to life.  That's the argument in a nutshell.  Basically the same as the slave owner's argument from 1860.

I don't think humans (with unique DNA, different from both parents) are subhuman by virtue of being relatively undeveloped.  I don't think anyone has ever made a cogent case for that argument.  If they have, I've never heard it.  I've heard appeals to ridicule aimed in that direction, but that's a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.  I've heard people just assume that premise.  But I've never heard anyone make a logical argument for it.

Basically what people do is one of three things:

1.  They either start to assign characteristics to the human as it gets older that allow them to emotionally identify with it as a human.  It's really a human when it's a "person," and of course what that means is entirely subjective and up to the emotional identification of the person in question.  Just like black people being more acceptable to racists if they have lighter skin and other Caucasian looking features.

2.  Or they assign milestones that have to do with the human's ability to feel pain.  As though feeling pain made some logical sense in terms of denying human status and basic human rights.  It's very easy to kill anyone of any age in a controlled environment without them feeling any pain.  I can take any poster on this forum into a hospital room and kill them without them ever feeling pain...in fact, until they go under they'll be having the time of their lives.  Does that give me the right to do it without their consent?  The two have nothing to do with each other when you think about it.

3.  They simply default to birth, and only because at birth the mother's bodily autonomy issue is removed from the equation.  Again, it's a non-sequitur.  One really has nothing to do with the other in the context of the specific question of why an unborn human should be considered subhuman.

Back to the original statement of that never have been challenged with Siamese twins (to the best of either of our knowledge), I'm still pretty confident that the law would side with the dead twin and not the live one.  We don't have a precedent that we know of, but I would be shocked if it turned out the other way.  Wouldn't you?

There is precedent in the UK, which is why I specified not the US.  
 

For what it’s worth, it was decided that the twins be separated, knowing it would kill one of them, without the agreement of the parents.

 

 

[Aufan59 73]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So we're talking about infants/newborns, then.  

Sure, I can believe that.  I'm talking about adults.

Remember, the whole premise is that the less they look and speak and think like us adults, the less we identify with them as humans with human rights and the more likely we are to decide for them whether they live or die.

I am not disagreeing that people in the womb don’t have rights.  But not the rights to use another person’s body.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

11 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

I am not disagreeing that people in the womb don’t have rights.  But not the rights to use another person’s body.

I'll leave this one recent post on the board since you are being very reasonable in this discussion.

You say that as though the unborn human being climbed in there by him or herself, like a squatter in a California house.

That's not what happened.

Statistically speaking, the mother almost certainly voluntarily engaged in an activity that she was fully aware could result in the creation of another human being.  If we're talking about an exception to that statistical probability, we can treat that differently, but for the vast, vast majority of cases, she's directly responsible for the human being existing in the first place and needing her body to survive (and yes, the father does too, but he has no ability to decide to kill the unborn human, so that's why I'm leaving him out.)

You don't get to create a child and then refuse to feed or clothe it and claim it has no right to "use" your finances.  And that even goes for the father who has no legal choice about whether to kill the child by abortion.  Currently the mother gets to decide, then the father is legally forced to pay for her decision.  Talk about being anti-choice.  But I digress...

You don't get to create a child and then refuse to feed or clothe it on the basis that it has no right to "use" your finances.  So why should you be able to create a child and then claim it has no right to "use" your body?  You created it, now you have an obligation to be responsible for it.  That legal obligation exists after the child is born.  Why shouldn't it exist before the child is born?

I reject the notion that people are entitled to engage in behavior that they know can result in pregnancy and then refuse responsibility for the pregnancy.  I wouldn't care if that didn't result in a dead human being, but it does, every time.

And I can't think of another legal precedent in which someone can cause something to happen and escape responsibility for it unless they were mentally disabled when they caused it (or forced to do so).  You drive drunk knowing that you could kill someone—you didn't intend to, but you knew it was a possibility—you go to prison for vehicular homicide.  You rob a bank and someone has a heart attack and dies, you get charged with felony murder.  You didn't intend for anyone to die, but you set the chain of events into motion, you're responsible.

Why in this case should parents not be held responsible for the chain of events they knowingly set in motion?