Um. You get real. Merely restating your case does not an argument make. I outlined why I thought the child is a separate entity although physically dependent on the mother. If you do not accept that as being separate then you must demonstrate how that state is so much different from being totally dependent outside the body. You must also demonstrate how this separateness confers rights and at what exact point this occurs.
As far as asserting rights, an infant can no more assert rights than a child in the womb. If you have ever had children, I'm surprised that you would hold the position that they can. If you haven't, I can see why you do. In fact, infants and young children have either no concept of rights or hold a concept that is more akin to a sociopathic emperor than a libertarian adult. This is not to say they are evil but that they are CHILDREN. You either forget or don't understand my position. To the extent that rights exist outside of a human concept (that's another discussion) I see the abortion issue as a conflict of rights and a moral issue. As far as the government is concerned, I come down on the side of not allowing the state to require a woman to sacrifice herself and not allowing the state to make those kind of moral decisions. As far as convincing anyone, I don't pretend to be able to do that. On the other hand, the anti- and pro-abortion crowds haven't done much convincing of each other either. They just, like you, keep making the same absolutist statements based on their own concepts of morality. I don't make a blanket statement that abortion is always morally wrong. I think in some cases it can be justified. In fact, almost everyone concedes this as even most of the anti-abortion crowd make the exception regarding the "life of the mother." I say that the state has no business deciding what the "life of the mother" means or even setting that limit. I also, however, refuse to let the pro-abortion crowd pretend that a child in the womb is not a human life. As I said over and over, it is not that simple. Ed$ --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonb...@...> wrote: > > Ed, > > Get real. A fetus is NOT "separate". Being INSIDE of another's > body, AND physically attached to it 100% of the time for > survival, is NOT "separate" (by any definition of "person"). > Whatever you mean by "biological entity", it is nothing that can > possibly have rights. If you intend to continue your > disagreement, tell us how a fetus can own or choose or be > identified while residing inside another's body. Of course, > despite what you claim, a newborn CAN assert its rights; it can > express desires, hold things, make choices, be identified, etc. > > And despite what you claim, these things say nothing about the > issue of child neglect. Dependency and care-giving are irrelevant > to the issue of abortion, since everything changes once there is > a separate person and rights. IOW my argument does not say that a > mother is within her rights to dump a kid in the dumpster and > walk away. That is quite another discussion. > > Apparently, albeit in a strange way, you have conceded my point > about conjoined twins. If you say you oppose the state making the > decision for the mother, our disagreement is basically moot. OTOH > if you still want to credibly insist that abortion is wrong, you > will need to provide a credible basis. You have not done that. > And with such an opinion, you will have a difficult time > convincing others that you honestly oppose state abortion law. > > Happy New Year > Hoping for, and wishing everyone, a MUCH better decade > Still betting that information and knowledge are key > ------------------------- > > > > > I don't accept your premises. Your concept of rights seems to > depend on two things. One is the separateness of the body from > anothers. In reality, a fetus is separate. The fetus is connected > to the mother only through the placenta. However, that is not a > connection in the sense that your arm is connected to your body. > A placenta is actually a tangle of interwoven veins. Some of > these veins are the mother's and some are the child's. These > serve to carry food and oxygen to the child but the child is > still a separate biological entity. In reality, the mother is > merely providing food and oxygen to the child. The newly born > child is totally dependent on the mother or some other > responsible human for food as well. Hopefully, at this point the > child can supply it's own oxygen but even this is, at times, > required to be provided with assistance. > > The other premise is the ability to assert rights. Clearly, the > newborn child cannot assert it's rights. At most it can complain, > often quite loudly, when it's rights are violated but mostly the > complaints are about hunger and dirty diapers. No adult has the > right to food or a clean butt provided by someone else. So, given > your premises, a mother is quite within her rights to dump a kid > in the dumpster and walk away. > > Lastly, your question about the conjoined "head" is illustrative > of my position. You ask ME to decide when a conjoined twin > becomes a human and has rights. I'm saying that I do not know and > do not have the right to make that decision either for the > "internal head" or for the "host." > > This is why I oppose the state making the decision for the > mother. I also refuse to make supporters of abortion comfortable > with their position by agreeing with their position that a baby > is nothing more than a piece of protoplasm before it passes > through the birth canal. As I said, it is not a simple thing. The > whole issue is complicated and should not be discussed in such > black and white terms as Rand does. > > Ed$ >
