Abortion

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I do not see that extension as logical because I do not accept the act of plugging someone into another person against their will acceptable.

The violinist did not plug himself into the person, it was the music group and THEY should be punished. If the violinist had plugged himself into someone against their will to save himself, then I don't see a problem with unhooking him. But he is innocent in this matter, and cannot be punished for something he did not do.

You still did not answer my questions.

How he came to be plugged into you, and the duration for which he must remain plugged into you aside, why should you have to remain plugged into him against your will?

Why should the right to life of the violinist give him the right to control your body?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You still did not answer my questions.

[b]How he came to be plugged into you, and the duration for which he must remain plugged into you aside, why should you have to remain plugged into him against your will?

Why should the right to life of the violinist give him the right to control your body? [/B]

I don't think the violinist is a good analogy. Simply because the violinist doesn't have the right to your body.

A fetus (unless rape) does have a right to it. If you made the decision to spread your legs, you should have to deal with the consequences.

But, because I feel like women that have bee raped, or could have complications with carrying full term, should have a choice, i guess everyone has to have that same choice

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You still did not answer my questions.

[b]How he came to be plugged into you, and the duration for which he must remain plugged into you aside, why should you have to remain plugged into him against your will?

Why should the right to life of the violinist give him the right to control your body? [/B]

I'm sorry. I thought I did answer that question.

Because unplugging him would kill him for something he didn't do. That doesn't mean he gets to dictate what happens to your body. After all, he shouldn't have been plugged into you in the first place. That simply means you are denied the option to kill someone to save yourself.

If a mob boss tells you to kill an innocent person or he'll kill you, that doesn't give you the right to kill that innocent person to save yourself. Even though the consequences of that person's right to life means you will be killed. And in this example we are talking about death, not a set time of physical discomfort.

The mob boss is the enemy and the mob boss should be dealt with. Just like the music group are the bad guys and they should be punished for placing you in this situation. Still doesn't give you the right to kill the violinist.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
I don't think the violinist is a good analogy. Simply because the violinist doesn't have the right to your body.

A fetus (unless rape) does have a right to it. If you made the decision to spread your legs, you should have to deal with the consequences.

But, because I feel like women that have bee raped, or could have complications with carrying full term, should have a choice, i guess everyone has to have that same choice

That doesn't quite follow. Some people are given the choice to use medical marijuana. That doesn't mean everyone is allowed to smoke it.

If you are claiming that women should have the right to get an abortion because of rape, that doesn't necessarily mean all women should have the choice to get an abortion whenever they want. It means all women should have the choice to get an abortion if they get raped.

Just sayin.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm sorry. I thought I did answer that question.

Because unplugging him would kill him for something he didn't do. That doesn't mean he gets to dictate what happens to your body. After all, he shouldn't have been plugged into you in the first place. That simply means you are denied the option to kill someone to save yourself.

If a mob boss tells you to kill an innocent person or he'll kill you, that doesn't give you the right to kill that innocent person to save yourself. Even though the consequences of that person's right to life means you will be killed. And in this example we are talking about death, not a set time of physical discomfort.

The mob boss is the enemy and the mob boss should be dealt with. Just like the music group are the bad guys and they should be punished for placing you in this situation. Still doesn't give you the right to kill the violinist.

That doesn't quite follow. Some people are given the choice to use medical marijuana. That doesn't mean everyone is allowed to smoke it.

If you are claiming that women should have the right to get an abortion because of rape, that doesn't necessarily mean all women should have the choice to get an abortion whenever they want. It means all women should have the choice to get an abortion if they get raped.

Just sayin.

Right, but it's hard to prove that a woman was raped. For example:

She gets pregnant with man, man leaves her, devestated she claims that he raped her and she's pregnant with his child.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see how this matters. In the end, we know the fetus is a person as much as we know the thing in the bush is a person.

If you want physical evidence for the fetus as a person you can look at you or me. We know the fetus becomes like us at some point, and we don't know when.

So the fetus is still in the same situation as the creature in the bush. In the realm of "possibly a person". The reasoning behind how it got to that point is irrelevant.

lol, so now not only do you feel it isn't your responsibility to provide evidence to support your position, you don't feel such evidence is worthwhile in the first place...

so again:

you need to go outside

you can't prove you wont die!

oh noes!

Originally posted by Utsukushii
Right, but it's hard to prove that a woman was raped. For example:

She gets pregnant with man, man leaves her, devestated she claims that he raped her and she's pregnant with his child.

True, people can take advantage of the system and twist it, but that doesn't mean you work your laws around those people.

If she claims the man raped her, he's going to get arrested. And there's going to be a trial. Then, either they are going to learn that he didn't rape her, or she's going to have to deal with the fact that she just sent an innocent man to jail because she didn't want to have a kid. If that's the case, she has a lot more to answer for than simply tweaking the system to benefit herself.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, so now not only do you feel it isn't your responsibility to provide evidence to support your position, you don't feel such evidence is worthwhile in the first place...

so again:

you need to go outside

you can't prove you wont die!

oh noes!

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying we know as much about the bush creature as we do a fetus. The cabin doesn't prove it's a kid, it simply suggests it as a possibility. The fetus is also in the realm of "possibility", same as the bush creature, except we don't have a cabin giving us this possibility, we have the knowledge that the fetus eventually turns into a person and might be one now for all we know.

Two different reasons for arriving at the same situation. We don't know the status of what we are killing.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm sorry. I thought I did answer that question.

Because unplugging him would kill him for something he didn't do. That doesn't mean he gets to dictate what happens to your body. After all, he shouldn't have been plugged into you in the first place. That simply means you are denied the option to kill someone to save yourself.

If you cannot be unplugged from the violinist because doing so would kill him, then the violinist is effectively controlling what happens in and to your body.

You cannot hold that the violinist does and does not have the right to control what happens in and to your body.

Simply reasserting that contradictory position does not explain why you should have to relinquish the control of what happens in and to your body to the violinist.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
I don't think the violinist is a good analogy. Simply because the violinist doesn't have the right to your body.

A fetus (unless rape) does have a right to it. If you made the decision to spread your legs, you should have to deal with the consequences.

But, because I feel like women that have bee raped, or could have complications with carrying full term, should have a choice, i guess everyone has to have that same choice

As long as the fetus is biologically dependent on the woman to live, then it is completely dependent on her will to allow it to live. It does not have a "right" to anything.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you cannot be unplugged from the violinist because doing so would kill him, then the violinist is effectively controlling what happens in and to your body.

You cannot hold that the violinist does and does not have the right to control what happens in and to your body.

Simply reasserting that contradictory position does not [b]explain why you should have to relinquish the control of what happens in and to your body to the violinist. [/B]

The violinist isn't controlling your body. You still have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it doesn't kill anyone.

Are you saying that the law is controlling your body when they tell you you can't use it to murder people? Or steal? Or any of the other things you aren't allowed to do?

Women's right to choose > your personal/moral opinion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
As long as the fetus is biologically dependent on the woman to live, then it is completely dependent on her will to allow it to live. It does not have a "right" to anything.

Pretty much can argue that abortions can be done up to the point the umbilical cord is cut using the "biologically dependent" stance, eh?

I support abortions during the first trimester only. After that the fetus develops a central nervous stystem and can technically be "aware" of some happenings.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Absolutely 100% pro choice with no restrictions.

I have since changed my opinion on this.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I support abortions during the first trimester only. After that the fetus develops a central nervous stystem and can technically be "aware" of some happenings.

how would you show awareness in a fetus?

Originally posted by inimalist
how would you show awareness in a fetus?

Research knows that after the development of a central nervous system fetuses are aware of and can even respond to light, sound, pressure, and even feel pain.

I still suport abortion rights during the first trimester when the fetus is basically just a mass of cells.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Research knows that after the development of a central nervous system fetuses are aware of and can even respond to light, sound, pressure, and even feel pain.

I still suport abortion rights during the first trimester when the fetus is basically just a mass of cells.

Which happens in the 3rd Trimester. Which is why, up to 5 months it's leagel to abort the pregnancy

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Research knows that after the development of a central nervous system fetuses are aware of and can even respond to light, sound, pressure, and even feel pain.

I still suport abortion rights during the first trimester when the fetus is basically just a mass of cells.

...

aside from feeling pain, which I would be highly suspicious of anyways (pain is a subjective variable that is very difficult to study in healthy adults, especially in terms of "pain awareness"😉, none of those things suggest awareness so much as they suggest reflex, which require no awareness

how did they test pain in a fetus?

Originally posted by inimalist
...

how did they test pain in a fetus?

I'm no expert on the subject but if my understanding is correct it's been due to fetal reactions to medical instruments during surgery.

fair enough...

I wouldn't call that a pain response, certainly not to the point of "awareness"

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough...

[b]I wouldn't call that a pain response, certainly not to the point of "awareness" [/B]

Isn't also possible to be aware, yet not feel pain?

Originally posted by Robtard
Isn't also possible to be aware, yet not feel pain?

sure

it is also possible to show reflexive actions without awareness

"awareness" is actually one of the most difficult concepts in psychology. Its not so bad as "consciousness", but it is close. Depending on how you slice it, either creatures that we know should be aware are unable to satisfy our criteria, or you get into weird places where things like plants can be aware (I can see 753 going nuts on his keyboard now...).

I don't like the term, and try not to use it in professional settings, as things like "explicit" and "implicit" fit better, imho. I'd be really surprised if "awareness" was used by a professional researcher in this circumstance, unless the researcher had a fairly strong bias about how to interpret their results.

Something like alien hand syndrome is the best example of what I'm describing. In most cases, people's hands can behave in very goal oriented ways, even though the person has no awareness at all that they are even moving (they are not explicitly aware of their behaviour)