Quote Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
you keep trying to jump to a scenario where you don´t have modern medicine.
again, if we don´t have modern medicine we don´t have abortions and so we wouldn´t be having this talk in the first place.
decisions do not exist in a vacuum, modern medicine exits...so our rules have to deal in that reality....if it ever goes away then it's back to the drawing board.
I am of the firm belief that modern technology is essentially irrelevent to morality, factoring such technology is a case of understanding how it relates to moral questions, not reshaping morality around. The fact is, abortions and various versions of the "morning after potion" have been available as long as caesarian section, if not longer (the clue there is in the name) but the advances in modern medicine have greatly increased the chances of survival of both mother and baby, and that is new. Such advances have also reduced the likelyhood of complications in an abortion, but that does not make it right.

I have already explained before why this is different to me.
when the fetus is still inside her as far as I am concerned the woman has the right to say "I don´t want my body to be taking part in this biological connection".....the fact is that this cannot be done without the fetus dying....well..you can´t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
my position is that it should happen as soon as possible in the pregnancy...this is just to try and reach a balanced position against the possibility of awareness on the fetus part in later parts of the pregnancy.
as soon as the child is not directly biologically linked to the mother the circumstance changes...therefore the rules change.
You are still sidestepping the issue though, abortion includes homocide, you are balancing the mother's inconvenience with the child's life and deciding in favour od the mother.

the rules about homicide are societal rules destined to prevent inter-citizen violence...but when you think about it the society does not consider the fetus a citizen...there is a reason why kids are counted on the census but fetus aren´t.
Ah, so you don't believe in moral law, fine then.

Quote Originally Posted by Nowake View Post
Hello again

Sigh, how can one place oneself on such a shabby footing. First of all, creating a legal obligation to risk your existence for the mere engagement in the most basic life experience of your species grossly ignores the anthropological realities of the species’ community, which was developed around sex as a main social nexus.
Maybe because I know, anthropologically speaking, that most societies license and regulate sexual activity because of the consequences in engaging in sexual intercorse. We are one of the most sexuallly unregulated societies ever, and as a result we have large numbers of single women with unwanted pregnancies, selective abortion is plaster on a wound in our society, not a solution. You describe sex as a social aspect of our society, but you ignore the fact that in the West people are increasingly engaging in sexual practices which either have no social dimension (one night stands) or negative ones (people getting together, jumping into bed after a couple of dates and then the woman getting pregnant, not to mention being infected with an STD.)

Second of all, and more importantly, even if the woman engages in consensual sex with the intention of having a child, pregnancy is a pretty innocuous enterprise in what the mother’s life is concerned for the vast majority of cases. A female legally forced to undergo the process in the presence of a recognized medical risk, when she would be able to repeat it in perfectly safe conditions, is literally endangered by the state.
Pregnancy is actually pretty dangerous, it's just that modern antinatal care is so good that most problems are caught before they become life threatening.

Please, I would have written that a male is the only one who can award a female rights onto his body as well, yet it didn’t describe a real & relevant legal situation. Kind of why in civilised societies adultery is not against the law And why the judiciary should never give a gender a default right over the other. That right must be asked for personally, and awarded personally each time, on a case by case basis – before you restate your presumption over what consent to a sexual act entails, do reread the first part of this reply. Oh and fact of life: while genders are socially equal, they are not equivalent from a biological standpoint, and pregnancy is the very unique and clear case in which this inequality is illustrated.
The judiciary do give one gender rights over the other though, women have the right to abort the baby which is 50% their sexual partner. If the woman has a "right" over her own body then does the man have a "right" over his own sperm? Those cells only belong 50% to the woman, so how can she legally be allowed to about 100% of the fetus? It's absurd, and it shows up the madness the in pro-elective stance. A teenage girl isn't allowed to cut her own breasts off just because she doesn't like them, the changes a woman's body go through in pregnancy are a part of her maturity, they are not unnatural or actually negative, quite the opposite. I fail to see why a woman, having chosen to initiate a pregnancy should then be allowed to cancel it. This isn't a hotel reservation, it's a new human life and one which, once it comes to term, the woman has only 50% rights over. Why should she have 100% rights in the womb?

Factually untrue for thousands of years now. Mothers commonly died at birth leaving behind offspring who developed normally in pre-industrial societies.
If you were rich enough to aford a wet nurse, otherwise you probably died. It doesn't change the fact that the child and the fetus are both dependants, but we accord one full rights and the other none based purely on the stage of development.