Is it fair to say that the "murder" type argument boils down to a variety of Pascal's wager?

The vast majority of mothers do donate the kidney to their kid, just as the vast majority of pregnant women allow their fetuses full and unrestricted use of their uteruses. Both cases are laudable, but while refusal of either might be sad and a choice many would not make, that refusal should never be criminal. Ending a pregnancy is not meant to be analogous to refusing an organ or tissue donation, only that our laws respecting the choice to donate organs or tissues reflect absolute body autonomy even post mortem, and that the presumption is always not to take anything without explicit consent, no matter the stakes for the potential recipient.

The main argument against this is not to assail the analogy but rather to argue that in all cases but rape, incest, and unforeseeable health risks, the mother gave consent to the use of her organs, and now she has to deal with the consequences. It's a weak argument, as if someone consented to give a pint of blood but decides halfway through that they don't want to anymore, that needle comes out of their arm immediately rather than forcing them to give the whole pint once they got going. We don't allow take backs on kidney donation, yes, but there's a pretty clear transfer of ownership there that has no analog to a pregnancy. The fetus has no claim to ownership of the woman's uterus that is any way like that of someone who accepted a kidney donation.

At least part of the weakness of the argument is down to a weakness in the analogy. It's different when the future 'need' is created by the consent.

ie if you happened to need a kidney from me to live and I agreed but then changed my mind that would be different in an important way to you agreeing to do something that might lead to you needing a kidney from me on the understanding that I would then provide it only for me to change my mind when you did need it.

Even though we might not support taking the kidney by force even in the second example we would I think agree there was a legal obligation on my part for which I could be held liable in some way. This later case is more of an analogous scenario to someone who has consented to the foetus reaching the stage where it's considered something of value in it's own right (assuming such a stage exists)

So what about this?

I've answered your question as straightforwardly and directly as possible: the child need not gain the mother's consent to survive; pregnancy is a natural result of a certain act. I don't know why you're ignoring that.

Your position has an untenable contradiction in it. First, there is no ambiguity about what is in the womb at the time of conception. There are living cells in the mother's womb, with DNA distinct from the mother's, that will form an additional member of our species if the womb is left free from the violence of an elective abortion. Second, the concept of "personhood," is not based in science at all and is definitely not integral to my case. Never has been. But it is to yours: you use the concept of "personhood" as the foundation for the right to life rather than when science explains when human life begins.

Thus, despite your desire to close down debate on your advocacy for aborting human lives, there are limits to how you can use your body (whatever that means in this entire context), specifically when it results in the destruction of innocent human life. We could curtail this discussion if you'd simply admit you support the powerful executing the powerless and not hide behind euphemisms like "right to decide," "reproductive health," etc.

People are emotionally committed to the fetus being the child.

Is there a limit to how many ways they can repackage the statement "I'm good, you are bad" rooted from that commitment?

@dereds, if you reply to my latest post from the Trump thread, you might as well reply to it here instead of there.

Some people. It's also possible to be "pro-choice" (which definitely is a euphemism) and still see the fetus as a child. I've yet to hear a good explanation as to how a very late-term fetus isn't a child.

Edit: and I got a little testy in the other thread because I felt like I was having a debate with the characters from Portlandia's "Women and Women First" bookstore, which in turn felt like banging my head into a wall.

What is the list of differences between a late fetus and a newborn?

A late-term fetus can survive and exist outside another person's body, which makes it like a baby/child.

Under normal circumstances, a late-term fetus is inside a person who has chosen to become a mother. This makes it like a child who has a mother who chose to reproduce.

Yes but the only interesting/difficult ethical bit is if the mother changes her choice for some non-medical reason in the later stages. We can really just ignore the people who insist a few cells matter at all.

The reason I don't think it's a big deal in practice is that it almost never happens. It's still seems a good thing for it to be clear that a decision has to be made in the early stages when there's no ethical issue otherwise it might be more common.

Sure I'll respond to both here.

What we call the fetus is less important than what it is, only that names seem to imply rights and I think it is important to determine what rights are and when they obtain. I have not heard anyone provide an adequate definition of what a right to life is or when it obtains.

You were having a debate with me and I didn't think you were testy but I clarified that it is individual autonomy not women's autonomy that is the guiding principle but that in the case of pregnancy the autonomy at issue is the persons bearing the fetus and so is specific to women.

The premature baby is a baby and the interests of the baby are those you've identified, the important difference between the fetus and the new born, is that the fetus interests make demands of the mother and the new born's don't. So there is a potential conflict between the mothers interests and those of the fetus that are absent post birth and we need to find a way to adjudicate. My argument is that in finding against the woman and so prohibiting abortion undervalues the woman's autonomy because there is no equivalent autonomy for the fetus, this is the point the fetus does not have the minimal autonomy that acquires at birth. Sure the baby still needs caring for but they are able to exist independently of the mother.

About those planned parenthood videos.....

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/13/9140849...ideos-unedited

Depends on how late. Potentially close to nothing if we consider the foetus in isolation. Potentially a lot if we consider the foetus in relation to the mother's health. A pregnant woman can be facing any number of major health risks.

But late term abortion is still a very different thing to early abortion. The difference between two points very close to each other on a timeline might be very little, the difference between two distant points is huge.

I'm curious how everyone feels about the current laws.

I'm pretty comfortable with how they are now, legal until about 24 weeks, when the fetus is considered viable ouside the womb. I think some states have restrictions after 22 weeks, having to do with the fetus' ability to feel pain.

Any pro-choice folks here overly upset they can't eat more mature fetuses?

I think some restriction on late term abortion is fine. There should be extenuating circumstances since, not being medically qualified at all, I'd guess there are some possible situations where doctors might decide that a certain course of action is best. And I think that where there's grey areas we should be inclined to rule in favour of the mother's rights over her body.

I think the bigger take away here is the need for the buying and selling of organs a la Iran's kidney market.

Having the most absurd discussion with Carson loving conservatives about the PP videos and abortion on FB.