Quote :

"I think the line is when the child is no longer physically contingent on the mother. I'm not comfortable removing or even lessening a woman's bodily autonomy rights due to the fact that she's pregnant."

Why not? I'm not allowed to drink and drive because it puts other people in danger. If I'm not driving, though, I can drink as much as I want.

If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes, she greatly increases the chances of her child being mentally and physically handicapped. If she isn't pregnant (abortion), go wild.

Quote :

" If you think abortion should be legal because a fetus doesn't feel much, then there shouldn't be any problem on account of the pain and suffering of the fetus."

But if she is planning on carrying to term, it's not a fetus we're talking about. She's putting a future child at great risk. Admittedly it's not a 100% risk, but the point remains.

Quote :

" If you create retarded children, you are somewhat obviously creating a problem for the state."

The state is the least of my concerns in this scenario...what about the kid?

11/25/2013 1:12:56 PM

Quote :

"Why not? I'm not allowed to drink and drive because it puts other people in danger. If I'm not driving, though, I can drink as much as I want. If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes, she greatly increases the chances of her child being mentally and physically handicapped. If she isn't pregnant (abortion), go wild."

Because a fetus isn't a person and a woman isn't a car.

11/25/2013 1:25:00 PM

That's just lazy, dude. Think a little deeper.

What if there were a drug that, if you took it while pregnant, caused your fetus's limbs to fall off, 100% of the time?

Is it still her right to take it?

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 1:28:15 PM

Quote :

"But if she is planning on carrying to term, it's not a fetus we're talking about. She's putting a future child at great risk. Admittedly it's not a 100% risk, but the point remains. The state is the least of my concerns in this scenario...what about the kid?"

I very clearly separated concerns of direct suffering from others. Some of those other concerns could include, for instance, lost productivity due to cognitive damage which applies to both the person and the state. You could list plenty of concerns.

If you want to introduce to the conversation the indirect suffering of the child due to development defects, then say so. Instead, you spent a post hinting.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2013 1:30:26 PM

I thought it was clear, but yes, that's what I'm getting at.

11/25/2013 1:31:32 PM

Well what about it?

11/25/2013 1:32:12 PM

I already asked the question. Is it okay for a pregnant woman to abuse a fetus she is planning on carrying to term?

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 1:32:59 PM

She should have a rare and safe abortion, and then be able to consume all those terrible drugs on her way home from the hospital.

11/25/2013 1:35:09 PM

Are you trying to characterize me as anti-drug, anti-abortion, etc? lol if so

But yeah, despite the sarcasm, you're right. I don't know why you can't address my point intelligently, though.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 1:37:16 PM

Smoking doesn't apply to the hypothetical of grave danger (or later grave suffering, it would be good to be clear which we're talking about) to the Fetus.

Light drinking doesn't either. Some evidence is pointing toward the benefits of a glass of red wine while pregnant.

There's the possibility that a drug may pose grave danger to the fetus, but no risk of suffering. In that case, it's like flirting with abortion. If abortion is okay, then there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that.

Binge drinking is the only thing I can think of that is clearly legal and clearly demonstrated to be dangerous to a fetus' development potential. If you're worried about a pregnant woman doing a drug which is already illegal, then there's nothing for the law to do here.

Now, in terms of binge drinking... I assume you're not going to look at a woman and ask if she's pregnant. (when is the right time to ask? never.) So we're down to community reporting - a friend or family member calls the police because a pregnant woman is drinking heavily.

What then?
- Legal punishment
- No action
- Forced abortion

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2013 1:44:09 PM

^
I don't know much about the effects of cigarettes or light drinking.

I realize it's a complex scenario and I haven't thought it through to any legal punishments (nor do I really care to). I'm addressing the point disco_stu brought up from a moral standpoint.

11/25/2013 1:51:40 PM

Quote :

"That's just lazy, dude. Think a little deeper. What if there were a drug that, if you took it while pregnant, caused your fetus's limbs to fall off, 100% of the time? Is it still her right to take it?"

Yes. Anything less is shifting away her personal autonomy in favor of a person that doesn't yet exist. Do I want her to do it? No. Would I think she's a monster for doing it? Yes. Do I think the state should be able to tell her she shouldn't do it? No.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 3:01:22 PM

^

11/25/2013 3:35:52 PM

Quote :

"Anything less is shifting away her personal autonomy in favor of a person that doesn't yet exist."

Why does it matter that the person doesn't exist yet if they will exist (remember we're talking about someone who plans to give birth)? The action has been set in motion. It's not personal autonomy when we're considering another person (even a potential one).

If you hire a hitman to murder someone, have you committed a crime? Or is it only a crime if the murder goes through? (yes fetus != person, blah blah)

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 3:50:32 PM

the hitman analogy doesn't work not because "yes fetus != person, blah blah" but because you have no moral and legal right to terminate the person you are hiring the hitman to kill.

if she has a full grown person attached to her body who is being supported by her body, she has the moral right to detach and kill that person even though doing so would be cruel and a disservice to that person. By extension, she has the moral right to perform some action to her own body despite harm that it would cause the person attached to her. It's a real dick move for her to do something that hurts the person attached to her, but it is her body to make that decision. That second person has no ownership claims on her body, so he can not be injured (in the legal sense) by something that she does to property to which he has no claim.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 3:57:28 PM

I'm referring strictly to moral rights right now, so legality is a non-issue.

Quote :

"if she has a full grown person attached to her body who is being supported by her body, she has the moral right to detach and kill that person even though doing so would be cruel and a disservice to that person. By extension, she has the moral right to perform some action to her own body despite harm that it would cause the person attached to her."

Detaching and killing I have no problem with because the person will never exist, whatever.

But when you decide to carry it to term, you've essentially given it adjunctive persondom. At that point, you're responsible for its well-being, and any intentional abuse is morally corrupt.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 4:07:39 PM

you and i are fighting in a battle together and my chest is blown open and heart is blown out of my body. because of my injuries, they can not reattach my heart but can keep me alive on bypass machines while i recover but not for any longer than that. a field surgeon takes my heart and sews it to you so that it stays healthy while it waits for me to recover, my heart is supported by your body. to prevent rejection of my heart, they give you anti-rejection meds that sometimes make you feel very nauseous and sick and on some occasion may even restrict you to bed. because of my heart and the meds, you can not drink alcohol or take any drugs or my heart will be damaged.

if you did not take the medicine or if you took drugs and damaged my heart, you would be doing me a disservice and would ultimately be killing me, but you have no moral obligation to carry my heart to term until i am healthy to reattach it. if you drank a little and i ended up with a disability it would not be abuse to me.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 4:18:32 PM

It's hard to compare the two scenarios. It's a more difficult decision to "abort" in your scenario, because it would kill a person, vs. a nothing. But assuming you do choose to keep the person's heart, I still think it is morally wrong to cause it avoidable harm.

With a fetus, you're free to just abort and then drink all you want.

11/25/2013 4:32:19 PM

how is it more difficult? with my heart you are free to abort and drink all you want.

whether you abort my heart or a fetus, you are killing a future person.



[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 4:33:19 PM

Quote :

"whether you abort my heart or a fetus, you are killing a future person."

The exploded heart guy is already a person. The fetus is only a future-person if you plan to carry it to term.

11/25/2013 4:37:31 PM

Okay, so I'm unconscious and if you don't carry my heart I would just never know



[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ^correction: its only a future person if you carry it to term. intentions don't matter.]

11/25/2013 4:39:26 PM

Quote :

"Okay, so I'm unconscious and if you don't carry my heart I would just never know"

That would make it easier to remove the heart, but you still have far, far more weight than an unborn fetus. The point about abusing the heart remains the same.

Quote :

"correction: its only a future person if you carry it to term. intentions don't matter"

gotta disagree. intentions definitely matter.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 4:44:28 PM

i'm not following either of those points, explain

11/25/2013 4:45:22 PM

Quote :

"But when you decide to carry it to term, you've essentially given it adjunctive persondom. At that point, you're responsible for its well-being, and any intentional abuse is morally corrupt."

I was talking about the rights that a woman has to her own body independent of her intentions for the fetus only as an umbrella for showing how deciding not to carry it to term is even more trivial. Let's not focus on hypothetical situations where people intentionally malform fetuses they intend to carry to term.

11/25/2013 4:50:53 PM

Well for point #1:

Unconscious or conscious, causing damage to his heart has the same effect. When you give it back, he's disabled. So it's irrelevant there.

As for the choice of whether or not to let him die because he's unconscious vs. conscious...I can go into it but I think it's irrelevant to the topic.

Point #2:

If you intend to have a kid, that action is set in motion. You are most likely going to create a person. As such, it is your duty to treat the seed of that person well. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.

Quote :

"I was talking about the rights that a woman has to her own body independent of her intentions for the fetus only as an umbrella for showing how deciding not to carry it to term is even more trivial. Let's not focus on hypothetical situations where people intentionally malform fetuses they intend to carry to term."

okay but it happens all the time. fetal alcohol syndrome is a thing. it isn't necessarily intentional, but it is a product of that person's irresponsibility (neglect)

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 4:52:07 PM

Quote :

"Unconscious or conscious, causing damage to his heart has the same effect. When you give it back, he's disabled. So it's irrelevant there. As for the choice of whether or not to let him die because he's unconscious vs. conscious...I can go into it but I think it's irrelevant to the topic."

you can damage the heart and kill him

Quote :

"If you intend to have a kid, that action is set in motion. You are most likely going to create a person. As such, it is your duty to treat the seed of that person well. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that."

even if you intend to carry them, you have no moral obligation to. and even if you did have a moral obligation to, if you intended to carry them but caused a miscarriage because of drug use it would still not be abuse because the fetus was never born.

so intention doesn't matter.

if you try to carry my heart because i'm your fellow soldier and you care for me, you are doing so as a great service to me and not because you are required to; you have no moral obligation to carry my heart. if you want to carry my heart but fail to and i die, it was a disservice but one that I will never know about. if you have the intention to carry my heart, or a fetus, but slip up just a little so myself or the fetus become a disabled person you have not abused either of us.


if I intend to murder you, but get drunk or high and never get to try, what moral or legal crime have i committed against you?



[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 5:02:43 PM

Quote :

"even if you intend to carry them, you have no moral obligation to. and even if you did have a moral obligation to, if you intended to carry them but caused a miscarriage because of drug use it would still not be abuse because the fetus was never born. so intention doesn't matter. "

Well yeah I agree with all of that, but you're avoiding the situation I'm actually talking about

If you get pregnant and choose to keep the baby, willingly, it is not your moral right to use drugs that will damage the fetus. Because when you carry out your intention (to have the child), you have neglected to provide it with proper care.

So your last two points are not relevant.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 5:14:31 PM

Quote :

"But when you decide to carry it to term, you've essentially given it adjunctive persondom. At that point, you're responsible for its well-being, and any intentional abuse is morally corrupt."

But retardation itself isn't necessarily abuse. That woman is growing a new organism with her resources. You are now complaining that she's not giving it the right resources to be the type of organism that you want.

If the child suffers social problems due to disabilities due to the mom binge drinking, that's not the mother's fault. That's society's fault for being shitty to disabled people.

What your argument needs (but you have yet to attempt) is clear establishment that the child suffers due to disabilities that came from the crappy prenatal environment. For instance, some disabilities (like arthritis) directly cause pain. That's suffering due to a physical condition. You've got a long long road to walk between the point you established that mother's drug addiction had a negative effect on the child, to establishing that this resulted in suffering.

11/25/2013 5:29:47 PM

this 37 page thread has officially gotten ridiculous...

11/25/2013 6:14:39 PM

Abortion is murder, but it doesn't matter.

11/25/2013 6:14:59 PM

Quote :

"Opposition to abortion has nothing to do with imposing of wills upon women out of misogyny "

Sure it does: are you or are you not in favor of placing more restrictions on what a woman can do with her own body? You say that you are. That fundamentally flies in the face of respect for her as an autonomous human being, and is therefore misogynist (because you know better than any woman would what she should do with her body). I'm sure you would be just as upset if there were laws that made ejaculation outside of a vagina illegal (because of the wasted potential human life, of course!).

Quote :

"...and what about women who are anti-abortion? That argument doesn't fly at any level there."

You're under some kind of impression that women can't be misogynists? Interesting...

Quote :

"That's pretty anti-feminist of you to say that just because we're men, we shouldn't have opinions on abortion. Shouldn't we be hearing ALL voices on something like this or has the definition of listening to "others" fallen out of feminist vogue recently?"

Thanks for not actually reading what I wrote

I never said you shouldn't have an opinion: I merely said you should count yourselves lucky to never have to personally make the decision about your body

y'all are going to continue the discussion regardless of what women say anyhow

I haven't even needed to contribute to this thread much since there are so many arguing the way I would

the point still stands that it will never be your specific bodies under discussion here

Quote :

"If she is planning on giving birth, is it still her right to smoke and drink, and otherwise abuse the fetus?"

Yes, it's her right. I could also drag up a number of more recent studies that show that moderate drinking doesn't really increase the risk of having a baby with FAS or lessened intelligence:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/expecting_better/2013/09/11/drinking_during_pregnancy_what_the_experts_don_t_tell_you.html

But generally speaking, if she knows she's pregnant and keeping it, I doubt most women would seriously smoke and drink heavily through pregnancy

Quote :

"Yes. Anything less is shifting away her personal autonomy in favor of a person that doesn't yet exist. Do I want her to do it? No. Would I think she's a monster for doing it? Yes. Do I think the state should be able to tell her she shouldn't do it? No."

This.

Quote :

"The fetus is only a future-person if you plan to carry it to term"

...and if nothing weird happens between now and when it's born, like a terrible disorder that ends up killing the fetus, etc

which is a more interesting issue to me, anyway, when women find out early on that their fetus has a rare medical disorder: what then? How do you weigh "suffering" in that case?

11/25/2013 7:37:30 PM

^
I admittedly don't know anything about how much you need to drink for FAS, how common it is, etc. So maybe drinking isn't as big a deal as I thought? Okay.

Still think it's odd that some of you think it's morally sound to torture a fetus and birth it. (ie. removing its arms and legs)

but high five for a good talk in TSB

mrfrog your last post is interesting but I'm not addressing because I'm philosophically drained

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 9:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 9:01:56 PM

I think you're glossing over the fact that while I (and presumably StillFuchsia since she agreed with my post) find the idea of a woman ingesting a "make-your-fetus'-limbs-fall-off" potion morally reprehensible, we find it even more morally reprehensible that the state should have the ability to tell her not to.

But this is irrelevant because you're talking about women intentionally causing suffering and I'm not convinced that ever happens. Even women who drink or smoke during pregnancy almost certainly aren't intending to harm their future child; they just don't know any better or are convinced that it will have no effect. And in the case of actual abortions, in essentially every case it is preventing suffering.

11/26/2013 8:39:24 AM

^^ I actually don't disagree with the sentiment. But for other reasons.

While child abuse is terrible in its own right, I think the adult consequences are far worse. It's a domino effect. People who were abused abuse. There is a much larger sense of moral responsibility that comes from that. Our greatest moral responsibility is a fully utilitarian concern for affecting the greatest good in the distant future.

The desire to create a better future argues strongly in favor of pro-choice. Parenting is a bitch. The discussion about prenatal defects sounds crushingly authoritarian, but that's why we shouldn't act like we know better than parents when we're not really sure. People get weird as hell about babies. I genuinely feel sorry for new parents, just because they have to listen to everyone's crap. Providing a good environment for a child isn't complicated, it's just hard as fuck. If you have an opportunity to let the irresponsible opt-out on their own accord, then for the sake of the planet let them do it.

11/26/2013 8:51:34 AM

^^ This is my position as well

11/26/2013 9:11:28 AM

Quote :

"But this is irrelevant because you're talking about women intentionally causing suffering and I'm not convinced that ever happens."

Re-reading this makes it sound like I was saying I thought that women never intentionally cause suffering. Just wanted to clarify that I'm talking about intentionally causing suffering on her future child by damaging the fetus inside her. Clearly I think women are capable of intentionally causing suffering.

11/26/2013 9:20:20 AM

^^


You mentioned that I was slut shaming women for choosing to have abortions...that isn't true. The whole abortion topic in general is about a woman's right to do what they want to with their body. So you say I slut shame when I talk about someone having an abortion rather than face the consequences of their actions. But there are many times where I've seen you talk, fairly horribly at times, about women being fat. Could we not call that fat shaming? And why is that ok to you? For some women, their weight is probably really mentally traumatic. What a woman eats should be just as much a right as an abortion. So if I shouldn't pass judgement on abortion, then why should you pass judgement on a woman's weight?

11/26/2013 11:37:07 AM

when have i tried to restrict what anyone eats or had a problem with fat people? your point just doesn't work for a lot of reasons.

we have had a pretty good level of philosophical discourse so far on this page, try not to drag it down

11/26/2013 11:46:10 AM

I won't drag it down, last post on the subject...I never said you were trying to restrict what anybody eats, but you make a judgement call if said eating leads to being overweight. Same judgement call you were making on me. I'm not out there restricting what women can do. I don't think abortion should be legislated. But I do think people should take responsibility for their actions.

Back to your philosophic banter.

11/26/2013 11:49:18 AM

I have never made a judgement about anyone being fat, and its not related to this topic anyways

11/26/2013 11:51:44 AM

Yeah, calling a fattie a fattie and making theads they start off as "Hey fatties..." is in no way judging overweight people.

11/26/2013 12:24:45 PM

^this

11/26/2013 12:27:54 PM

just like calling a "jerk" a "jerk" is no way judging terrible people

11/26/2013 12:31:02 PM

exactly

11/26/2013 12:38:29 PM

is it judging to call a blonde-haired person blonde?

11/26/2013 12:40:59 PM

No, but it is if you call them a dumb blonde (or insinuate it).

...also, dont circle the wagons around dtownral. He is a hated user and none of his fat threads/comments are positive in any way.

11/26/2013 12:46:32 PM

If I say that a woman who had an abortion just had an abortion, its a description. I could even say, "that woman just had an abortion, I don't like abortions and think its bad" and that would be an opinion.

I just can't say, "The desires of the government or even society at large should trump her personal autonomy to make medical decisions about her own body and she shouldn't be allowed to make her own choice to have an abortion and should go to jail for murder.

we covered this a long time ago and the conversation has moved well past it, but if you guys need to catch up that's what it is

11/26/2013 12:57:34 PM

^^
who's insinuating though?

Quote :

"He is a hated user"

no you just have a weird grudge

11/26/2013 1:05:35 PM

thread is returning to its roots.

11/26/2013 1:12:40 PM

If I say that a woman who had an abortion just had an abortion, its a description. I could even say, "that woman just had an abortion, I don't like abortions and think its bad" and that would be an opinion.

I just can't say, "The desires of the government or even society at large should trump her personal autonomy to make medical decisions about her own body and she shouldn't be allowed to make her own choice to have an abortion and should go to jail for murder.

we covered this a long time ago and the conversation has moved well past it, but if you guys need to catch up that's what it is

11/26/2013 1:16:13 PM