june gloom on 3/7/2013 at 00:49
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
No, but I know almost 100% more than you about the subject.
I suppose that's why I'm so pro-choice - I've seen lots of horrible stuff and I'm well aware of the risks that come with pregnancy and forcing someone to carry a child they don't want to term is mental.
Funny thing is dethtoll, I'm fairly sure we're both pro-choice.
But that's not what this argument is about. The argument is about whether dudes have the right to an opinion re: abortion. And I'm telling you they don't, because
they do not give birth. It's as simple as that. The hypothetical example you gave? The situation is
not about you. Stop trying to inject yourself into what is supposed to be your wife's decision. She may include you in her deliberations and she may ask your opinion -- and because she likes you for some reason she probably will -- but she doesn't
have to and you shouldn't ask. This is extremely basic stuff. Real feminism 101 stuff.
SubJeff on 3/7/2013 at 00:56
Well we're talking about two different things here. Of course at the time, when asked, the woman should always get to make the final decision.
But that decision should be made within the context of the law and this thread was about the law and who gets to make it.
june gloom on 3/7/2013 at 01:03
Actually, it's the same discussion. Who gets to make the laws re: abortion? At current, mostly a bunch of men! \o/
Renzatic on 3/7/2013 at 01:15
Between this and the Zimmerman case, I'm honestly getting tired of all the shrill, overly opinionated people on the internet.
Phatose on 3/7/2013 at 01:15
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Actually the decision should be made by
the person whose body is being discussed. i.e.
the woman considering the abortion.
Anyone else want to try?
The problem is that it's anything but clear that the woman considering the abortion is the only person whose body is being discussed. The whole abortion debate is largely centered around the idea that there's actually someone else who's body is involved - the fetus - and it doesn't have access to lawyers.
Renzatic on 3/7/2013 at 01:38
Quote Posted by Phatose
The problem is that it's anything but clear that the woman considering the abortion is the only person whose body is being discussed. The whole abortion debate is largely centered around the idea that there's actually someone else who's body is involved - the fetus - and it doesn't have access to lawyers.
My shrill opinion on the matter is rather simplistic. I'm pro-choice until the third trimester. Up until that point, what's currently residing in a woman's uterus is only philosophically a human being. It's nothing more than a collection of cells. It doesn't even have a nervous system, let alone a brain capable of registering and interpreting pain. It will eventually become a human being, but hasn't made it there yet. It's all potential, nothing actual.
But there does come a point where, while still residing in the womb, this collection of cells become a complete, but weak and helpless human being. It has a fully formed brain, nervous system, digestive tract, and even has a heartbeat of its own. This usually happens at some point within third trimester. When this point comes, there's no longer a choice to be made. Only in the most dire of circumstances, as in when the mother's life is in danger, should a late term abortion be considered.
So 24 weeks. That's how long all women have to decide before it's no longer a decision that can be made, but a responsibility. It is, to me, a compromise between pro-choicer and pro-lifers that works from a moral, philosophical, pro-feminist, and scientifically sound standpoint. I can't think of a good argument against it.
mopgoblin on 3/7/2013 at 01:39
Yeah, it doesn't actually matter whether the foetus is a person or not. I mean I don't get to, say, take one of your kidneys (even if I'll die without it), do I?
Renzatic on 3/7/2013 at 01:52
I'm probably missing some obvious sarcasm, but yeah...it does matter. It's the crux of the whole abortion argument. There is a point where you can't consider a fetus a person, no matter how much you want to. Sure, it might be vaguely shaped like a baby. Have little nubs where it's arms will be, a bean shaped head, and a couple of dark spots where its eyes will be. But it's not. It's tissue within the mother's body that only vaguely resembles a baby, nothing more.
But there is a point in utero where a fetus does become a human being, capable of living outside the womb if born prematurely (with some assistance, of course). It's from that point and beyond where I don't believe abortion should be legal under normal conditions. But what happens to a fetus before that point is entirely up to a woman's discretion.
Chade on 3/7/2013 at 01:54
Mopgoblin, I don't think individual rights work so well when one of those people is literally living inside the other.
At the end of the day, there isn't a good solution here. It's just a question of whose rights get impinged and how badly.
Phatose on 3/7/2013 at 01:56
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Yeah, it doesn't actually matter whether the foetus is a person or not. I mean I don't get to, say, take one of your kidneys (even if I'll die without it), do I?
Kind of depends on the situation. If I had nothing to do with you needing one of my kidneys, no, you generally don't have that right. If, however, you need my kidney because I knocked you out, rendered both of your kidneys non-functional for 9 months, then hooked you up to mine, it becomes a hell of a lot more complicated.
