For the sake of this discussion assume that through advancements in technology a test was developed in order to determine if a fetus carried the gay gene. If this technology existed, and there really is a gay gene, then would you support a mother's right to have an abortion after viewing the results of this test?
Pro-choicers already support a woman's right to abortion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I would strongly question the mother's choice, but I would still support her right to choose. That's the funny thing about the right of a person to make choices regarding their own body, that right isn't null just because I personally disagree with the reasons for making that choice. And I would strongly disagree with those reasons.
First off, I would say that Idea of a "gay gene" or being born that way is just a fallacy used by the gay and lesbian community to further their agenda. There is no solid proof of its existence. Anyways that is a debate for an other day. First off this question I feel has problems. Anyways my view on the matter is that a fetus/embyro is still a human. It contains all genetic information and is developing the organs necessary for life outside the womb. So without entailing the whole gay and lesbian thing. It's already possible probably to determine if it is a boy or a girl, hair, color and eyes. So if a mother were to get said test and found out they did not want a kid with brown eyes and get an abortion. I would say that is wrong, but then again I am not pro-choice.
I am pro-life yet I have no theist reasons for being pro-life. To me its a pretty easy and objective question. So lets not cloud this with morals and just take objective overview first. An embryo outside of the womb is in a volatile state and for all intensive purposes pretty much dead. An embryo in the womb will develop into a human unless complications arise. A human is just a collections of cells. An important identifying feature to human cells is their genetic make up. An embryo is a collections of cells and has the same genetic mark of a human. Thus, an embryo is certainly human. Lets refine this further a dead persons is a pile of cells and the cells will eventual stop living the same applies for an isolated chunk of person. A separated limb or finger is human but is not alive so its cells are not living. An embryos cells are alive while in the womb. Yet if removed from the womb it might appear at first that its like cutting off a limb. An embryo is not quite the same as arm or finger for it has the potential of being independent of the womb at the right time. It is clear that cells of an embryo are living and are human regardless of intellectual capacity of the embryo.
So now that I have established briefly that the embryo is human. What are the mothers rights regarding this. We can agree that a human is allowed to modify their own cells via piercings, tattoos, and plastic surgery. Yet, there is precedent that suicide or termination of ones cells is frowned upon or even illegal in some regards. So this right is limited to some degree. Additionally, it clearly obvious that modifying, damaging, or terminating someone elses cells against their will is illegal. Clearly, if the embryo cell's were the mother's it would give her the most freedom of choice. However are the cell's of the embryo's hers? At first it might appear yes, but after fertilization the cells are made of part her genetics and the fathers. The resulting genetic mark/information of the embryo neither match the mother's or father's cells in full giving neither party definitive rights of ownership as it does not match either parties signature. So can the mother call these cells her body? It also certain that an embryo/fetus would not have intellectual capacity to give these rights to either party. Further, the embryo is developing to become more independent of the mother. An example in real life would be a person in critical condition at the ER. That person is dependent on the staff at the hospital to ensure that their patient recovers to be independent. It would be problematic if doctors and nurses decided to terminate care of their dependent patients just because it was troublesome. Does a mother get the right to terminate the currently dependent fetus/embryo. Is being temporally dependent on someone for survival deserving of death?
The only instances that are normally socially permitted to terminate anyone's life is usually the following: war, self-defense, and execution of criminals.
War and self-defense are fairly similar so I shall address them at once. If the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy it is basically an attack on the mothers life. Thus termination of the pregnancy is more acceptable. However many other case I fail to see a valid reason. Is the embryo/fetus a criminal?
Any ways I am getting tired. I hope didn't make too many typos or something unreadable as a result.
I would strongly question the mother's choice, but I would still support her right to choose. That's the funny thing about the right of a person to make choices regarding their own body, that right isn't null just because I personally disagree with the reasons for making that choice. And I would strongly disagree with those reasons.
Would you support the woman's right to use her body to strangle a person? (Even though you may disagree with it)
I would strongly question the mother's choice, but I would still support her right to choose. That's the funny thing about the right of a person to make choices regarding their own body, that right isn't null just because I personally disagree with the reasons for making that choice. And I would strongly disagree with those reasons.
Would you support the woman's right to use her body to strangle a person? (Even though you may disagree with it)
The relationship between an independent stranger and an attached, dependent fetus is not remotely the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
if technology advanced far enough that the unborn fetus wasn't terminated but just taken away (where else did the empire get their army?) would you support the choice then?
if technology advanced far enough that the unborn fetus wasn't terminated but just taken away (where else did the empire get their army?) would you support the choice then?
I would still support a woman's choice about whether to remove the fetus or not. That the fetus will now survive such a procedure doesn't change that she has the choice.
So now that I have established briefly that the embryo is human.
Nope, you established that you're against the right for a woman to control her own body that's it.
And thus why abortion debates are pointless. One side believes it is murder, the other that we're controlling someone's body. If personhood was established, we'd all be one the same side, but as long as those fundamental facts can't be agreed on there really is no point to the discussion. =/
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Wtf is this supposed to mean ?
Unwanted pregnancy is unwanted, that's it...
Edit :
@Yonekura :
Quote from "Yonekura" »
So now that I have established briefly that the embryo is human.
Nope, you established that you're against the right for a woman to control her own body that's it.
What makes an embryo/fetus not human? Last time I checked a big identifying feature of a species/living organism in modern biology is it's genetics. Clearly, it is human on that regard.
A much more interesting questions though is are the cells of and embryo/fetus the mothers own cells? I will just state this one fact clearly the mother's cells, and the embryo's/fetus's genetics are close to enough to be of the same species, yet each are genetically different. Conclude what you want from that fact.
I feel that genetic difference of embryo/fetus is at least enough determine they are different organisms of the same species.
Not to strawman your question, but it sounds a lot like "I have a question for you pro-choicers: would you support eugenics?" Which of course is a far wider-ranging topic than a hypothetical gay gene. (It'd still be a horrifically complicated issue if we also had hypothetical in vitro gene therapy to "turn off" the gay gene or any other undesirable genetic pathway.)
But maybe this would be a great use for abstinence only education: "The only 100% effective way to not have a gay child is to not have children!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Is a chimeric or mosaic individual multiple organisms?
Well chimera's are definitely interesting and bring up a lot of issues of bioethics. I will say the parts of a chimera are likely never to be independent of themselves and rely off each other for survival it's a closed system. Since the system can not be broken apart it is likely to considered one organism. However couldn't a mother carrying a baby be considered a case of a super-organism more so than a chimera.
What makes a independent person more important than a dependent person?
The distinction between an independent person and a dependent collection of cells that hypothetically could become a person one day is important because the comparison bakgat was trying to draw requires that they be the same when they are not. That distinction is how one can be pro-choice while not also pro-murder.
What makes a independent person more important than a dependent person?
The distinction between an independent person and a dependent collection of cells that hypothetically could become a person one day is important because the comparison bakgat was trying to draw requires that they be the same when they are not. That distinction is how one can be pro-choice while not also pro-murder.
Well are not all be people a collection of cells? I could just replace person with collection of human cells. Wouldn't the dependent collection cells have to be human to become a person as you say. So again it boils down to an independent collection of cells and a dependent collection of cells.
What. I have a question for you pro-lifers. If you were against homosexuality and you found out your baby carried the gay gene, would you abort it?
No, I would not abort. If this technology was ever developed I believe that it would be an issue so large to split the Democratic Party right down the middle. It would pit homosexuals against pro-choicers. No homosexual wants homosexuality to be systematically eliminated from the gene pool. If this test was ever developed, then I would expect eugenics to take over and homosexuals would simply be exterminated out of society. There are plenty of people who will support homosexuals with their words, but would, given the choice, rather have a heterosexual child.
It is just an interesting question to see leftists have to consider because both sides of the question have ugly consequences for their political ideology.
What makes a independent person more important than a dependent person?
They have the same amount of importance. That goes for a fetus or a person in need of a blood transfusion. Neither is allowed to force someone to give up their body to keep them alive.
As we're asking all these hypotheticals, I feel like throwing in the Violinist Dilemma.
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
So, would you remain plugged to the violinist for the full nine months? Would you force a family member to remain if they were kidnapped?
edit: As far as OP's question is concerned, I'm pro choice but am very confused by selective abortion rather than abortion for financial or personal reasons.
It is just an interesting question to see leftists have to consider because both sides of the question have ugly consequences for their political ideology.
It is just an interesting question to see leftists have to consider because both sides of the question have ugly consequences for their political ideology.
No moreso than someone using their right to get a tattoo to permanently ink a white supremacist message on their arm does.
I wouldn't condone that action, but you have the right to your own body. Nobody else has a right to it; just you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I am pro-life yet I have no theist reasons for being pro-life. To me its a pretty easy and objective question. So lets not cloud this with morals and just take objective overview first. An embryo outside of the womb is in a volatile state and for all intensive purposes pretty much dead. An embryo in the womb will develop into a human unless complications arise. A human is just a collections of cells. An important identifying feature to human cells is their genetic make up. An embryo is a collections of cells and has the same genetic mark of a human. Thus, an embryo is certainly human. Lets refine this further a dead persons is a pile of cells and the cells will eventual stop living the same applies for an isolated chunk of person. A separated limb or finger is human but is not alive so its cells are not living. An embryos cells are alive while in the womb. Yet if removed from the womb it might appear at first that its like cutting off a limb. An embryo is not quite the same as arm or finger for it has the potential of being independent of the womb at the right time. It is clear that cells of an embryo are living and are human regardless of intellectual capacity of the embryo.
So now that I have established briefly that the embryo is human. What are the mothers rights regarding this. We can agree that a human is allowed to modify their own cells via piercings, tattoos, and plastic surgery. Yet, there is precedent that suicide or termination of ones cells is frowned upon or even illegal in some regards. So this right is limited to some degree. Additionally, it clearly obvious that modifying, damaging, or terminating someone elses cells against their will is illegal. Clearly, if the embryo cell's were the mother's it would give her the most freedom of choice. However are the cell's of the embryo's hers? At first it might appear yes, but after fertilization the cells are made of part her genetics and the fathers. The resulting genetic mark/information of the embryo neither match the mother's or father's cells in full giving neither party definitive rights of ownership as it does not match either parties signature. So can the mother call these cells her body? It also certain that an embryo/fetus would not have intellectual capacity to give these rights to either party. Further, the embryo is developing to become more independent of the mother. An example in real life would be a person in critical condition at the ER. That person is dependent on the staff at the hospital to ensure that their patient recovers to be independent. It would be problematic if doctors and nurses decided to terminate care of their dependent patients just because it was troublesome. Does a mother get the right to terminate the currently dependent fetus/embryo. Is being temporally dependent on someone for survival deserving of death?
The only instances that are normally socially permitted to terminate anyone's life is usually the following: war, self-defense, and execution of criminals.
War and self-defense are fairly similar so I shall address them at once. If the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy it is basically an attack on the mothers life. Thus termination of the pregnancy is more acceptable. However many other case I fail to see a valid reason. Is the embryo/fetus a criminal?
Any ways I am getting tired. I hope didn't make too many typos or something unreadable as a result.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
Would you support the woman's right to use her body to strangle a person? (Even though you may disagree with it)
The relationship between an independent stranger and an attached, dependent fetus is not remotely the same.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
That was easy. Any other questions?
if technology advanced far enough that the unborn fetus wasn't terminated but just taken away (where else did the empire get their army?) would you support the choice then?
It doesn't matter to me if it's gay, straight, deformed, perfect, or simply unwanted.
I would prefer the State get out of our marriage business, and our ******/uterus business.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
And thus why abortion debates are pointless. One side believes it is murder, the other that we're controlling someone's body. If personhood was established, we'd all be one the same side, but as long as those fundamental facts can't be agreed on there really is no point to the discussion. =/
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
What makes an embryo/fetus not human? Last time I checked a big identifying feature of a species/living organism in modern biology is it's genetics. Clearly, it is human on that regard.
A much more interesting questions though is are the cells of and embryo/fetus the mothers own cells? I will just state this one fact clearly the mother's cells, and the embryo's/fetus's genetics are close to enough to be of the same species, yet each are genetically different. Conclude what you want from that fact.
I feel that genetic difference of embryo/fetus is at least enough determine they are different organisms of the same species.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
But maybe this would be a great use for abstinence only education: "The only 100% effective way to not have a gay child is to not have children!"
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
No, I would not support a woman's choice to use her body to murder another independent person. Which is not the same as an abortion.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Well chimera's are definitely interesting and bring up a lot of issues of bioethics. I will say the parts of a chimera are likely never to be independent of themselves and rely off each other for survival it's a closed system. Since the system can not be broken apart it is likely to considered one organism. However couldn't a mother carrying a baby be considered a case of a super-organism more so than a chimera.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
What makes a independent person more important than a dependent person?
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
The distinction between an independent person and a dependent collection of cells that hypothetically could become a person one day is important because the comparison bakgat was trying to draw requires that they be the same when they are not. That distinction is how one can be pro-choice while not also pro-murder.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Well are not all be people a collection of cells? I could just replace person with collection of human cells. Wouldn't the dependent collection cells have to be human to become a person as you say. So again it boils down to an independent collection of cells and a dependent collection of cells.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
No, I would not abort. If this technology was ever developed I believe that it would be an issue so large to split the Democratic Party right down the middle. It would pit homosexuals against pro-choicers. No homosexual wants homosexuality to be systematically eliminated from the gene pool. If this test was ever developed, then I would expect eugenics to take over and homosexuals would simply be exterminated out of society. There are plenty of people who will support homosexuals with their words, but would, given the choice, rather have a heterosexual child.
It is just an interesting question to see leftists have to consider because both sides of the question have ugly consequences for their political ideology.
So, would you remain plugged to the violinist for the full nine months? Would you force a family member to remain if they were kidnapped?
edit: As far as OP's question is concerned, I'm pro choice but am very confused by selective abortion rather than abortion for financial or personal reasons.
Art is life itself.
In what way? I see no conflict at all.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
No moreso than someone using their right to get a tattoo to permanently ink a white supremacist message on their arm does.
I wouldn't condone that action, but you have the right to your own body. Nobody else has a right to it; just you.