This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The latest trend in pro-abortion thinking

#121JIC XPosted 2/20/2013 10:09:05 AM
This isn't really a new trend, TC.

Even if the fetus has a right to life, how would that lead to the conclusion that its mother cannot have an abortion?
A homeless man surely has a right to life, but, even if one shows up on my doorstep about to freeze to death, I'm not committing a crime if I don't invite him in to eat my food, sleep on my furniture, and take advantage of my central heating.

Does one person have the right to be in another person's body without permission?

That's the whole question here, as far as I'm concerned, and I think the answer is obviously "no."
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#122RedcountPosted 2/20/2013 10:50:14 AM
No but you need a religious belief(or, at least, religious like) that a fertilized egg is a human being, but sperm and unfertilized eggs aren't.

So your counter to "I'm not religious, but I don't support is abortion" is "no, you really are religious!"

Religion deals with the supernatural. To have any belief in the rights of man requires religious belief?

It seems that you think anything other than nihilism is "religion".

The value of human life is human consciousness. If you kill something that lacks self-awarness, sensory perception, memories, emotion, cognitive processing, etc. etc. all the aggregates of sentience and personhood, then what have you really killed? The answer is nothing. Just a biological framework, a cocktail napkin doodle of a human life, a mere potentiality.

Infants lack a theory of the mind until 4 years old, can't recognise themselves in a mirror until at least 18 months. Is it acceptable to kill children, too? What about the mentally disabled?

I hear "mental invalids" cost the country millions of reichsmarks every year. Fellow citizen, this is your money, too!
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#123RedcountPosted 2/20/2013 10:53:09 AM
JIC X posted...
This isn't really a new trend, TC.

Even if the fetus has a right to life, how would that lead to the conclusion that its mother cannot have an abortion?
A homeless man surely has a right to life, but, even if one shows up on my doorstep about to freeze to death, I'm not committing a crime if I don't invite him in to eat my food, sleep on my furniture, and take advantage of my central heating.

Does one person have the right to be in another person's body without permission?

That's the whole question here, as far as I'm concerned, and I think the answer is obviously "no."


The difference here is one of positive rights versus inherent rights. The homeless man has a right to life, that is, to be unmolested and to not be killed. Doing nothing to a homeless man will not kill him, he will die of something else. Doing nothing to an unborn child will result not in its death, but in it being born eventually. It takes a direct action to kill it.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#124Evil Genius 9Posted 2/20/2013 10:54:48 AM(edited)
It also takes direct action, which may have been involuntary on the part of the mother, to put it in there.

---
International: Chinese Woman Gives Birth to Septuplets; Has One Week to Choose...
www.theonion.com
#125KinethPosted 2/20/2013 11:02:54 AM
Well, of course the unborn have value. We just destroyed it when we removed the ability to use stem cells from embryos.
---
http://i53.tinypic.com/2mfdvsg.gif
#126JIC XPosted 2/20/2013 11:05:28 AM
The difference here is one of positive rights versus inherent rights. The homeless man has a right to life, that is, to be unmolested and to not be killed. Doing nothing to a homeless man will not kill him, he will die of something else. Doing nothing to an unborn child will result not in its death, but in it being born eventually. It takes a direct action to kill it.

1. That's essentially a semantic argument, as there are certainly ways a woman could deliberately terminate her pregnancy by doing "nothing." Suppose she's, say, a heavy crack user and she refuses to change her lifestyle in view of the pregnancy. That's a form of doing "nothing." Or suppose she simply refuses to eat or drink.

It's no answer to say "I did nothing" when you had a duty to do something.
The question's whether a woman has a duty to maintain another person in her body when she wants that person out.

2. Suppose I have invited a homeless person into my home during a snowstorm. Surely I have the legal right to kick him back out, even if to do so might put him at risk of life and limb?

More generously to my position, suppose he came into my home without my permission in the first place. Maybe he wandered in through an unlocked door. Maybe he broke a window. Does he have a right to stay if I want him out?
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#127RedcountPosted 2/20/2013 11:14:55 AM
1. That's essentially a semantic argument, as there are certainly ways a woman could deliberately terminate her pregnancy by doing "nothing." Suppose she's, say, a heavy crack user and she refuses to change her lifestyle in view of the pregnancy. That's a form of doing "nothing." Or suppose she simply refuses to eat or drink.

It's no answer to say "I did nothing" when you had a duty to do something.
The question's whether a woman has a duty to maintain another person in her body when she wants that person out.


Yes, it's called "duty of care". This can be established in many cases - such as for parents for their children.

2. Suppose I have invited a homeless person into my home during a snowstorm. Surely I have the legal right to kick him back out, even if to do so might put him at risk of life and limb?

I wouldn't speculate on that. Honestly, I wouldn't risk it. I think you'd definitely be putting yourself at risk, legally. I think you'd need to establish some kind of pressing reason to do that, like he was an imminent threat to you. I could definitely see that case or something similar arising in the future. The police in western provinces have gotten in trouble for releasing drunks into the winter weather. Obviously there's a clear duty of care there, but even for a private citizen, I think it could very well be established. I should check the case law on that one.

More generously to my position, suppose he came into my home without my permission in the first place. Maybe he wandered in through an unlocked door. Maybe he broke a window. Does he have a right to stay if I want him out?

Indeed you do. But unless he's trying to kill you, you absolutely do not have the right to kill him by crushing his head and eviscerating his body. We don't have "Castle doctrine" here.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#128JIC XPosted 2/20/2013 12:01:44 PM(edited)
Yes, it's called "duty of care". This can be established in many cases - such as for parents for their children.

Well, if you want to get into the common law:

1. no one owes a duty of care to a fetus unless and until it's born alive;

2. In Canada (ref. Dobson v. Dobson), a mother will never be liable to her child for injuries sustained in utero, even if it is born alive.

I wouldn't speculate on that. Honestly, I wouldn't risk it. I think you'd definitely be putting yourself at risk, legally. I think you'd need to establish some kind of pressing reason to do that, like he was an imminent threat to you. I could definitely see that case or something similar arising in the future. The police in western provinces have gotten in trouble for releasing drunks into the winter weather. Obviously there's a clear duty of care there, but even for a private citizen, I think it could very well be established. I should check the case law on that one.

I think that if you refer to the cases, what you're going to find is that a person with the right to possess real property has a corresponding right to exclude others from it.
That's... Kind of what they teach you on the first day of property law.

If there is a legal duty to shelter hobos, or not to expel hobos after inviting them in, it's statutory.

Indeed you do. But unless he's trying to kill you, you absolutely do not have the right to kill him by crushing his head and eviscerating his body. We don't have "Castle doctrine" here.

You are, however, entitled to expel him by force if necessary.

And the considerations I'm trying to illustrate are more, not less pronounced when the body is concerned than the home. Whose body is it, anyway? Women are not state-owned baby factories.

...Oh, and I guess it's a little superfluous, but the procedure you've described is illegal in most places, and very rarely performed in any event. Only a very small percentage of women are willing to bring a child nearly all the way to term and then terminate the pregnancy. It's normally only done in circumstances where the mother's life is at risk or where the fetus is already dead or has a fatal deformity or other condition incompatible with life.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#129RedcountPosted 2/20/2013 12:14:09 PM
Well, if you want to get into the common law:

1. no one owes a duty of care to a fetus unless and until it's born alive;

2. In Canada (ref. Dobson v. Dobson), a mother will never be liable to her child for injuries sustained in utero, even if it is born alive.


Precisely why I'm saying we need legislation.

I think that if you refer to the cases, what you're going to find is that a person with the right to possess real property has a corresponding right to exclude others from it.
That's... Kind of what they teach you on the first day of property law.


The case law may say that, again, I'd check it first, but I think if somebody died after being expelled, it's possible that you could make a civil case out of it. I have little faith in the courts to defend property rights over someone's life.

You are, however, entitled to expel him by force if necessary.

And killing him in the process could very well be considered excessive. I'm almost certain it would be.

And the considerations I'm trying to illustrate are more, not less pronounced when the body is concerned than the home. Whose body is it, anyway? Women are not state-owned baby factories.

Nor is a baby a factory product that can be disposed of.

...Oh, and I guess it's a little superfluous, but the procedure you've described is illegal in most places, and very rarely performed in any event.

Certainly not in Canada. That would infringe on women's rights!

Only a very small percentage of women are willing to bring a child nearly all the way to term and then terminate the pregnancy. It's normally only done in circumstances where the mother's life is at risk or where the fetus is already dead or has a fatal deformity or other condition incompatible with life.

But, again, there's no law in Canada saying that you can't abort a fetus five minutes before its due date. Eight months, eight and a half...no legislation.

And that's really where we should be starting the debate. Sure, we can't get legislation to prevent all abortions, but the later in gestation, the more people will agree that it should be prevented. So maybe we draw a line in the sand at eight months, or seven. That would be a hell of a lot better than the current vacuum.
---
Going to Saskatoon to catch an all ages Ahnabith Gish show for 15 Canadian dollars. Maybe I'll get a wrist band so I can drink a refreshing Molson's - Orca
#130JIC XPosted 2/20/2013 12:23:47 PM
The case law may say that, again, I'd check it first, but I think if somebody died after being expelled, it's possible that you could make a civil case out of it. I have little faith in the courts to defend property rights over someone's life.

The first thing that comes to mind is Childs v. Desormeaux, the SCC's big social host liability case.

A couple hosted a party at which the defendant became drunk. He decided to drive home, the hosts didn't stop him, and on the way he crashed into and paralyzed Zoe Childs, the plaintiff. The Court held that the social hosts were not liable to Childs.

Would they have been had they kicked Desormeaux out rather than simply allowing him to leave? Would they have been liable to Desormeaux if, instead of a third party, he'd injured himself or been killed?

...My thinking is probably not.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus