[Johnj]

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no
rights of parts of individuals no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece
of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in
time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized
ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to
man and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and
physically separate from one another. That which lives within the body of
another can claim no prerogatives against its host.

Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper
nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an
unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of
her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right
to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the
actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm,
which has no life in the human sense of the term."

If I were to harm a pregnat woman, and harm also came to the unborn child, I would be charged with harming both the woman and the child. Look at Scott Peterson. He is charged with two counts of murder. (as he should be) So you are saying that a woman can conspire with a number of people, including a doctor, and KILL her unborn child. But if the father did the same thing, he would be charged with murder. All the people including the doctor would be charged with at least conspericy. That sounds fair and consistent.

[SoLiDUS]

The LAW is far from being what it should be. It's based on faulty philosophy,
that is to say on flawed metaphysics, epistemology and ethics/politics. If you
feel good about contradictory positions, so be it.

[Johnj]

My position on this matter is not contradictory, I'm saying both men and women need to follow the same laws. If it is against the law for a man to termanate his childs life, than it should also be against the law for a women to do so.

[SoLiDUS]

Based on what you've written, it seems that the law gives rights to the
foetus, correct ? How can a potential being possess rights ? If it does,
we have a serious problem: if it doesn't, there's a double-standard in
place... and that is even worse. What I tried to communicate is that we
need to correct these problems. The man killing his pregnant wife has
not killed two beings: only one.

[Short Hand]

deep soli. very deep.

[Kraut Killer]

That is true Solidus, but when does this potential being pass the threshold to become a being? Is it when it becomes self-aware? Then you could argue it's still only a potential being for a couple months after birth. Is it when it achieves concious thought? Then you could argue that some of the members on this board are still potential beings. Or is it just when the kid plops out of the vaj, and is alive... although you could always argue it's been alive for some time. The whole argument is about when life starts, whether it be in the womb, that really should be spelled woom, or the moment it passes through the birth canal. Now, since this is an argument against Solidus' opinion, I know you're probably going to come back with some shit about existentialism or some shit, which I'm too dumb to comprehend... so I'll end it at that, and add that I have no real opinion about abortion, it isn't happening to me, so I couldn't give two fucks.

[SoLiDUS]

My opinion is as follows:

It becomes an individual when it no longer resides in the womb. When the
child is born and separate from the mother, it possesses rights. Don't make
me go existential on your ass :-)

j/k bro... interesting discussion we have going!

[Johnj]

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

Based on what you've written, it seems that the law gives rights to the foetus, correct ?

In one case yes, in another, no.

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

How can a potential being possess rights ?

This depends on your definition of "potential being". It's a "potential being" while your talking in a bar. It's a "potential being" while your making out at the park. I think it is a "potential being" right up untill the sperm joins the egg.

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

If it does, we have a serious problem: if it doesn't, there's a double-standard in place... and that is even worse.

I don't see where giving a fetus a reasonal right to life is a problem, and you have to know that there is a double-standard in place..

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

What I tried to communicate is that we need to correct these problems. The man killing his pregnant wife has not killed two beings: only one.

But he would be charged with two counts of murder.

[SoLiDUS]

OK, you didn't understand so I won't try a third time. Let's agree to disagree...

[Johnj]

No problem and have a great day!

[bukdez]

pro-choice... a womans body is hers to do with as she pleases...

[Kraut Killer]

NO! Her body belongs to me! She must ask my permission to do anything to her body.

[Maplegyver]

fuck that shit, if your bitch baging whore ass gets pregnat delver it then send it to an orphanage.

[Old Reliable]

i personally don't care

[Coleman]

I think we all can agree that the problem lays in the interpretation of WHEN the sperm/egg (whichever stage it's in) is alive.