Is The Fetus An Intruder Or An Invited Guest

[Quester]

Is a baby (fetus) truly an intuder in the womb or is he/she an invited guest?

Hasn't the host acted to send out an invitation?

Would not it be the height of irresponsibility (or worse) for a host to send out invitations, but to hope that nobody shows up ... or even worse, to determine to evict any who respond to the invitation and show up, knowing that such an eviction means certain death for your guest(s)?

Place yourself as a non-Jew in Nazi occupied Europe. You know that the Jews are being hounded and herded by the Nazis, ultimately, to the death. You hear, through the grapevine, that some, in your community, have determined to discretely put the word out on the streets that their homes are available for use as sanctuaries to hide Jews from the Nazis. Those that have done this are quietly being considered 'heroes' in your community. You determine that you would like to be held in such high honor as these, and so, you let it be known that you are willing to take in Jews, as well. But, secretly, you have absolutely no intention of hiding any Jews ... after all, in reality, it would put you in danger and, infringe upon your societal freedoms (after all, Jews in hiding will have needs that only you will have the ability to meet). You hope that no one takes you up on your offer. But, your backup plan is that, if anyone does accept your invitation, you will, at your earliest convenience, discretely contact the Nazis and turn your 'guest(s)' over to them to be taken away to death. Once freed from your emcumbrance, you will put your 'invitation' (to death) back out on the street again.

Is this not immoral behaviour?

[RISU]

God bless you. And may God bring wisdom back into the American heart. Amen.

[A Navy Vet]

Sarcasm. Read further in the posts.

[Hajman]

Yes, that's correct, which makes me wonder what the point of this post is. I said the mother's rights should be weighed in the balance with more consideration than the fetuses. This seems to me to be rather obvious, but perhaps it is not.

But when you take into consideration what rights there are, the mother has none that trumps the fetus' right to life.

The fetuses right to life could, on account of that consideration be pushed clear back into the womb, by a very generous take on this bundle of rights, but pushing it to conception is absurd. So, in my humble opinion, by no doubt sheer coincidence, the present law is probably about morally correct in striking the balance between fetal and mother's rights.

The present law is based off of falsities. It's false in itself. There's no such thing as a mother's right to not be inconvienced (as many abortionists claim).

-The Hajman-

[donh]

Also, the mother has no such thing as 'defense against physical harm' from a fetus.

The mother has the same rights respecting such a thing as she does having a wart excised. If allowed to persist, the wart will do her harm. If an outside agent forcefully prevents her from removing the wart, that outside agent is doing tort harm. Your claim, like all such claims, is based on the implied sacredness of fetuses, as opposed to warts. This is undemonstrated--it is simply a religious claim, and it only has force for those who believe in it, it a a primary assumption, not a logical deduction.

[Hajman]

Yes, that's correct, which makes me wonder what the point of this post is. I said the mother's rights should be weighed in the balance with more consideration than the fetuses. This seems to me to be rather obvious, but perhaps it is not.

But when you take into consideration what rights there are, the mother has none that trumps the fetus' right to life.

The fetuses right to life could, on account of that consideration be pushed clear back into the womb, by a very generous take on this bundle of rights, but pushing it to conception is absurd. So, in my humble opinion, by no doubt sheer coincidence, the present law is probably about morally correct in striking the balance between fetal and mother's rights.

The present law is based off of falsities. It's false in itself. There's no such thing as a mother's right to not be inconvienced (as many abortionists claim).

-The Hajman-

[RobRoy]

Happiness is a right to the same extent that Life and Liberty are.

That is a pattently false statement, at least in the united states. According to the constitution, you have the right to life (the government cannot kill you unless your acts justify it), liberty (you are in control of your destiny, not the government) and the pursuit of happiness (the government cannot stop you from pursuing happiness).

Put another way, the goverment has said they will not impede your search for happiness. They are not responsible for whether or not your pursuit is successful. Same goes for health (as in: no government health care).

[donh]

But when you take into consideration what rights there are, the mother has none that trumps the fetus' right to life.

You can't have this simply by stating it over and over. The fetuses right to life is substantially diminished compared to a full citizen, and does not automatically outweigh the mother's enslavement, battery, and theft of service. The right to life is not a binary switch, with only two values. It it something requiring adjudication.

[donh]

Put another way, the goverment has said they will not impede your search for happiness. They are not responsible for whether or not your pursuit is successful. Same goes for health

Yea, yea. Tailhappy made this point as well. I grant it. However, it don't butter much parsnips in this argument. The irreconcelable conflict is between the mother's liberty, and the child's life. These stand on exactly equal grounds in the Declaration.

[Hajman]

The mother has the same rights respecting such a thing as she does having a wart excised. If allowed to persist, the wart will do her harm. If an outside agent forcefully prevents her from removing the wart, that outside agent is doing tort harm. Your claim, like all such claims, is based on the implied sacredness of fetuses, as opposed to warts. This is undemonstrated--it is simply a religious claim, and it only has force for those who believe in it, it a a primary assumption, not a logical deduction.

A human is not a wart, by any stretch of the imagination. You're really reaching for arguments here.

(Sorry for the delays. When it takes over 45sec for FR to respond, it's bad).

-The Hajman-

[donh]

The present law is based off of falsities. It's false in itself. There's no such thing as a mother's right to not be inconvienced (as many abortionists claim).

I take it you exercised my invitation to explain why you wouldn't now be in jail of you did to a woman what a fetus does? "inconvienience" is in the eye of the beholder. Tort harm can be demonstrated with medical records--which a pregnant woman accumulates plenty of.

[A Navy Vet]

"The mother has the same rights respecting such a thing as she does having a wart excised. If allowed to persist, the wart will do her harm. If an outside agent forcefully prevents her from removing the wart, that outside agent is doing tort harm. Your claim, like all such claims, is based on the implied sacredness of fetuses, as opposed to warts. This is undemonstrated--it is simply a religious claim, and it only has force for those who believe in it, it a a primary assumption, not a logical deduction."

Yikes! This is what you think of the human fetus? No wonder we can't get anywhere with you. Religious principles aside, most Western philosophers and ideologs see an intrinsic superior value of the human mind over all other things in the known universe. You see the developing human mind as of no more importance that a virus. Communications.......out.

[donh]

A human is not a wart, by any stretch of the imagination. You're really reaching for arguments here.

This is not responsive to the thrust of my argument. You claim the woman can't treat the fetus like a wart, and that certain legal officials can therefore interfere by force of arms. Your claim is based on sacred knowledge inaccessable to a skeptical objective observer.

[Hajman]

You can't have this simply by stating it over and over. The fetuses right to life is substantially diminished compared to a full citizen,

You do realize that the right to life of any person is independent upon his/her citizenship don't you? You can't murder a non-citizen without being called on it (unless it's a fetus, a very specific case). That claim is demonstratably false.

, and does not automatically outweigh the mother's enslavement, battery, and theft of service. The right to life is not a binary switch, with only two values. It it something requiring adjudication.

Enslavement, battery and theft of service? Oh boy, now you've really gone off the deep end with emotional arguments. In a biological mother-child relationship, those don't apply. Do you really think feelings trump biology and the right to life? That's what you're suggesting. Also, enslavement could be applied to mothers, if you were to go with this invalid logic. In that case, born children could be killed. Going to be consistent?

-The Hajman-

[RobRoy]

Sarcasm. Read further in the posts.

Yeah, I did after the fact. Now which one of us is obtuse? Sorry.

[donh]

Communications.......out.

Fine, I am in the habit of acceding to all such claims. Human mind is supreme--fine. It is still the case that we do, and should, allow people into the moral community as they demonstrate the capacity to exercise moral judgement. No other criteria makes sense, or allows cultures to persist. Rights for cows was tried and failed by the Indus valley civilization.

[Brad’s Gramma]

I take it you exercised my invitation to explain why you wouldn't now be in jail of you did to a woman what a fetus does?

You've mentioned things like this periodically throughout this forum. Why do you feel that it's such an imposition for a woman to have a baby? In general. Not that 13 year old you talk about.

Don, if that's your only (or strongest) argument, you've got to rethink this. Methinks you're a girl who's had a bad experience with pregnancy or knows someone who has? I'm VERY VERY sorry if that's the case.

But, that's not an excuse for killing a child.

[Hajman]

I take it you exercised my invitation to explain why you wouldn't now be in jail of you did to a woman what a fetus does? "inconvienience" is in the eye of the beholder. Tort harm can be demonstrated with medical records--which a pregnant woman accumulates plenty of.

Would you like to explain how in reality I could do what a fetus does? It's an unrealistic situation.

This is not responsive to the thrust of my argument. You claim the woman can't treat the fetus like a wart, and that certain legal officials can therefore interfere by force of arms. Your claim is based on sacred knowledge inaccessable to a skeptical objective observer.

Ok, that was completely incomprehensible. Would you put that into english, please?

The irreconcelable conflict is between the mother's liberty, and the child's life.

The mother's liberty isn't harmed one bit by the child's life. The mother remains free. (Liberty doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want).

-The Hajman-

[donh]

Enslavement, battery and theft of service?

if you did to a woman what a fetus does to a woman, would you be in jail, or not?

...

Signing off for the day--I'll check back tomorrow, and respond to anything not overly rude and dismissive. Thanks to all for arguing with me.

[A Navy Vet]

"You do realize that the right to life of any person is independent upon his/her citizenship don't you?"

No, he doesn't realize that, even though I've posted the definition of a citizen. You're wasting your time here. Once he compared a developing fetus to a virus (wart), it became obvious he will never agree. But thanks for sticking up for those poor helpless little people that are tossed away every day.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Indeed, you did a very good job. Thanks for defending the babies! (AND their moms!!!!)