5 ms·

A person holding to this position will have no problem with a woman wanting to cut off a finger or remove a toe, but as soon as you consider the unborn to be a

by smizell 13y ago

A person holding to this position will have no problem with a woman wanting to cut off a finger or remove a toe, but as soon as you consider the unborn to be a person that has a body, every right given to someone with a body would be extended to the body in the womb. Not trying to start any debate (I promise), but I would say it does solve the issue with abortion, because there is a human body in the womb, and would therefore have rights protecting it from being killed.

darkarmani 13y ago
> and would therefore have rights protecting it from being killed. So what about the rights of the mother to suicide? Don't those rights conflict?
- smizell 13y ago
  Though I'm not arguing for what the original commenter was arguing for, I don't think it would be a conflict in their line of thinking. I think the OP would argue for the right to suicide, but not for the right to commit suicide by head on collision with another car. It's the same idea. Plus, we would want to be very careful with pregnant women wanting to commit suicide, because their body is going through so much stuff at the time. Those desires could very well be contrary to what the woman is really living for. A pregnant woman with suicidal desires (in OP's argument) should be seen as someone who needs assistance to live, not assistance to die. Again, just stepping inside that thinking and not necessarily arguing for/against OP's argument.
gliese1337 13y ago
It does not, because the whole point of the abortion debate is that many people don't think that there is a human body with rights in the womb. The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans; clarifying the rights of humans without specifying who counts as human is pointless for this purpose.
- BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
  > The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans That is the debate. Your statement is tautological.
- smizell 13y ago
  I didn't want to start or get into a debate, but I'll bite for a second :) I have a really hard time understanding how some can claim that a body in one location is human, but that body in another location is non-human. How should it be classified? Is it even homo sapien or a different species (or no species)? Is a baby half delivered half human? The argument is really whether or not women have the right to kill that human body, or whether or not that human body in her womb has any rights on its own to live. edit: spelling
  - erichocean 13y ago
    That's why we use the term "fetus". It's not a baby, and it's also not not human. It's in an intermediate category, which is the whole reason there is a debate at all. IMO, both positions—the fetus is "my body" and I can do what I want with it—and—the fetus is a full human being, a person, like everyone else—are disingenuous. It's okay that a fetus be neither, and that we have special rules governing that situation. A fetus doesn't have to fit into pre-existing categories.
    - smizell 13y ago
      We are all humans in some intermediate category, and to say a human of some category (like a fetus) has no claim to its right to life is pulled out thin air. This is all word play. If you look up the etymology of the word, fetus at one time even referred to the newborn. The only thing distinguishing a fetus from a human these days is a fancy, made-up definition. Last though, if we change the definition of fetus to mean "full human being in the womb," would it then make it morally right? It's interesting that the morality of this issue hangs on what Merriam-Webster has to say.

by smizell 13y ago

darkarmani 13y ago

> and would therefore have rights protecting it from being killed. So what about the rights of the mother to suicide? Don't those rights conflict?

smizell 13y ago
Though I'm not arguing for what the original commenter was arguing for, I don't think it would be a conflict in their line of thinking. I think the OP would argue for the right to suicide, but not for the right to commit suicide by head on collision with another car. It's the same idea. Plus, we would want to be very careful with pregnant women wanting to commit suicide, because their body is going through so much stuff at the time. Those desires could very well be contrary to what the woman is really living for. A pregnant woman with suicidal desires (in OP's argument) should be seen as someone who needs assistance to live, not assistance to die. Again, just stepping inside that thinking and not necessarily arguing for/against OP's argument.

gliese1337 13y ago

It does not, because the whole point of the abortion debate is that many people don't think that there is a human body with rights in the womb. The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans; clarifying the rights of humans without specifying who counts as human is pointless for this purpose.

BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
> The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans That is the debate. Your statement is tautological.
smizell 13y ago
I didn't want to start or get into a debate, but I'll bite for a second :) I have a really hard time understanding how some can claim that a body in one location is human, but that body in another location is non-human. How should it be classified? Is it even homo sapien or a different species (or no species)? Is a baby half delivered half human? The argument is really whether or not women have the right to kill that human body, or whether or not that human body in her womb has any rights on its own to live. edit: spelling
- erichocean 13y ago
  That's why we use the term "fetus". It's not a baby, and it's also not not human. It's in an intermediate category, which is the whole reason there is a debate at all. IMO, both positions—the fetus is "my body" and I can do what I want with it—and—the fetus is a full human being, a person, like everyone else—are disingenuous. It's okay that a fetus be neither, and that we have special rules governing that situation. A fetus doesn't have to fit into pre-existing categories.
  - smizell 13y ago
    We are all humans in some intermediate category, and to say a human of some category (like a fetus) has no claim to its right to life is pulled out thin air. This is all word play. If you look up the etymology of the word, fetus at one time even referred to the newborn. The only thing distinguishing a fetus from a human these days is a fancy, made-up definition. Last though, if we change the definition of fetus to mean "full human being in the womb," would it then make it morally right? It's interesting that the morality of this issue hangs on what Merriam-Webster has to say.