Prolifers, in what situation is it morally acceptable for a woman to abort pregnancy?

[threemae]

Inspired by this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=291701

So, pro-lifers, in what situations does a woman have a right to obtain an abortion? I'll agree that cases where the safety of the woman is at stake should certainly be okay. And of course, rape and incest. But what about inconvenient or simply unplanned pregnancy? What if this child has the potential to catastrophically affect the woman's future educational, earning, achievement, and social potential?

What if the woman just flat doesn't want the kid?

Frankly, I'm guessing that most people that call themselves pro-life believe that the choice should ultimately lie with the woman to carry the pregnancy to term or not, and I agree with this viewpoint. But I also believe that men should have the ability to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities completely in the same way that men can. Yet, in that thread, even in GQ, people had a thinly veiled disgust for his attempts to shirk his parental responsibility. The only person that even brought up or entertained the thought that the situation was unfair to males was Carnac the Magnificent.

So, why the double standard?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Once the kid is born, the woman can't terminate any responsibility. A pregnancy is not a child, and if it's terminated, then there never was a child to be responsible for.

Once the kid is born, it's a whole different ballgame and both parents are on the hook. A man is responsible for his own sperm. I can't believe that anyone would suggest that it's acceptable for a man to abandon his own children.

[Tamerlane]

So, why the double standard?

As has been said on this topic many times before - it's just biology. If we were seahorses it might not be as much of an issue, but unfortunately we're not ( oh, to be a seahorse, delicately floating amongst the kelp fronds! ). The woman carries all of the physiological burden and risk of bringing a child to term and thus gets ( and absolutely must have ) an unequal say in termination. Once the child is born, the welfare of the child now becomes paramount and both parents, willing or not, are on the hook.

Sucks, perhaps, but there 'tis.

- Tamerlane

[Nobody]

Of course a woman who has a child she doesn't want could also give it up for adoption once it's born.

[davenportavenger]

Of course a woman who has a child she doesn't want could also give it up for adoption once it's born.
Pregnancy carries with it many health risks, including the risk of diabetes, permanent back problems, infertility from an infection or botched delivery, and hormonal changes, which can take several years to go back to "normal" (pre-pregnancy levels). Also, there is often a hormone-influenced bond that forms between the mother and the baby once the baby is born, which inhibits adoption. Carrying a baby to term is a much bigger investment than, say, leaving a cake in the oven the full twenty minutes.

[curly chick]

Frankly, I'm guessing that most people that call themselves pro-life believe that the choice should ultimately lie with the woman to carry the pregnancy to term or not, and I agree with this viewpoint.

If that was the case, how could anyone ever call themselves pro-life? What you are describing sounds to me like pro-choice, rather than pro-life.

Anything I've ever read or heard about the pro-life point of view is that the woman never has any right to terminate a pregnancy and that the right of the unborn to be born is the only right that there is.

[kanicbird]

My quick $0.02 is that as long as the adoption system is not overburdened, there is no need to kill our offspring.

In cases where the fetus would kill or seriously damage the mother, besides 'normal' childbirth 'damage', I think that person should be able to chose to kill their child. Well I really think it should be the parents who make that call together.

In cases of serious fetal problems, again I would leave that up to the parents.

In the case of rape, absolutley not, you don't kill an innocent 3rd party (child) you kill the rapist, well after he/she pays 18 yrs of child support.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You would force a 14 year old girl to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape? :eek:

[kanicbird]

You would force a 14 year old girl to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape? :eek:

You would kill a baby because the mother was raped? :eek:

[El Zagna]

And of course, rape and incest. Of course? Why "of course"? If life begins at conception then it begins at conception from rape and incest as well. The fetus/child is not a party to whatever activity that led to its existence.

I have always found the rape or incest exception to be philosophically troubling. Indeed it seems to me to give lie to the claim of pro-lifers that it's all about the innocent unborn child. When you invoke the rape or inceat exception what you seem to be saying in effect is "Well, the mother wasn't an immoral slut so she shouldn't be punished for having sex." While that's over the top, it's really what it comes down to, isn't it?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You would kill a baby because the mother was raped? :eek:
Of course not.

[catsix]

Diogenes said:
Once the kid is born, the woman can't terminate any responsibility.

She can in Pennsylvania. This is a 'Safe Harbor' state, meaning that a woman or girl can drop her newborn off at any hospital, no questions asked, and never see the kid again. She doesn't have to give her name or any identifying information of any kind. So say all the flyers that are located on the front 'flyer table' of the building I work in describing the Safe Harbor program.

kanicbird said:
You would kill a baby because the mother was raped?

Rape is far and away traumatic enough without adding yet another injury by forcing someone to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder that they were attacked. Hell no I would never, ever force someone to endure a pregnancy caused by rape.

[kanicbird]

Of course not.

Then Diogenes the Cynic are you OK with your money going to pay a hitman to kill that baby because the mother was raped?

Remember the OP is about morallity, not law. People commit immoral actions all the time, including aboutions. Morally speaking there is very little reason to kill (or hire to kill) one's offsrping.

[El Zagna]

Rape is far and away traumatic enough without adding yet another injury by forcing someone to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder that they were attacked. Hell no I would never, ever force someone to endure a pregnancy caused by rape.Life is full of traumas, big and small. Are you advocating a trauma exception to the rape or incest exception?

What if a married couple conceives a child, but shortly after that the father is killed in an automobile accident, and the mother has no way of providing for the child by herself. Is that a big enough trauma? What if prenatal testing shows that the fetus will be born with some terrible birth defect that will require constant care and will certainly kill the child in a few years? The mother will have "to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder" of the hopeless situation she is in. Have we crossed the trauma threshold yet?

On the other hand what if the rape leading to a pregnancy is one of those if-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? Does that really reach the level of trauma to justify ending an innocent child's life?

[Jillyvn]

Life is full of traumas, big and small. Are you advocating a trauma exception to the rape or incest exception?

What if a married couple conceives a child, but shortly after that the father is killed in an automobile accident, and the mother has no way of providing for the child by herself. Is that a big enough trauma? What if prenatal testing shows that the fetus will be born with some terrible birth defect that will require constant care and will certainly kill the child in a few years? The mother will have "to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder" of the hopeless situation she is in. Have we crossed the trauma threshold yet?

On the other hand what if the rape leading to a pregnancy is one of those if-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? Does that really reach the level of trauma to justify ending an innocent child's life?

Your two hypothetical situations are completely different. In the first one, comparing a woman's grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.

Second, if prenatal testing shows such a defect, I would advocate the mother's right to chose to abort.


I'm going to ask for some clarification on this point:

"-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? "

My understanding is, if a woman says no, and the guy proceeds to have sex with her in spite of her refusal, that IS rape.

[kanicbird]

Yes, I don't buy the trauma arugment, live is full of them, deal w/ it.

There is an old Indian (Native American) saying, which I don't recall the exact words, which I'm sure are translations anyway. "When you ask the Great Sprit for strenght, He (or She) sends you hardship and trauma as that will strenghten you."

Your two hypothetical situations are completely different. In the first one, comparing a woman's grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.

In the case of the father dieing, adoption is a very good option.

I'm going to ask for some clarification on this point:

"-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? "

My understanding is, if a woman says no, and the guy proceeds to have sex with her in spite of her refusal, that IS rape.

Legally you are correct, but this op is about moriallity, and in that respect it's not so cut and dry. Also the word rape has been diluted so much as when I hear the word, I have to ask for clarification, which is a shame.

When I hear rape now, several things go through my mind as to the possibilities, including the violent type where one does not know the rapist, or knows them, to date rape, both violent and a type where one says no at 1st but then seems to go along w/ it, to regretting sex after it happens. This doesn't even include statuatory rape where the victiom could be technically be one day younger then the rapist.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Then Diogenes the Cynic are you OK with your money going to pay a hitman to kill that baby because the mother was raped?

Remember the OP is about morallity, not law. People commit immoral actions all the time, including aboutions. Morally speaking there is very little reason to kill (or hire to kill) one's offsrping.
Can you read? I said I do NOT think a baby should be killed because its mother was raped.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes, I don't buy the trauma arugment, live [sic] is full of them, deal w/ it.
You can't make the trauma go away by saying you "don't buy" it.

Forcing a victim to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape is cruel and inhumane to the pont of being sociopathic. It shows an utterly depraved lack of human compassion or empathy.

[catsix]

bnorton said:
Life is full of traumas, big and small. Are you advocating a trauma exception to the rape or incest exception?

I'm not advocating for 'exceptions' because I am not a pro-life person who believes abortion should be illegal.

The mother will have "to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder" of the hopeless situation she is in. Have we crossed the trauma threshold yet?

What I'm saying is that a rapist has already victimized a rape victim. Why should that rapist be further victimizing that woman by having to carry his child?

What good do you see in forcing someone to carry the pregnancy of a rapist? I see nothing but destruction.

Rebekkah said:
In the first one, comparing a woman's grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.

It's certainly not the most apt comparison in the world. The woman who chose with her husband was certainly not victimized by her husband and isn't continuing to be victimized by him because he died. If anything, as in the case of a former coworker of mine, the child becomes a way for part of that deceased husband to live on. When Sandra (not her real name) found out that her husband had died in a tragic accident while she was pregnant with their daughter, she chose to name the daughter after the husband as a way of keeping part of him with her always. It would've been far more traumatic to her to lose that baby.

kanicbird said:
Yes, I don't buy the trauma arugment, live is full of them, deal w/ it.

Dealing with it? One way to 'deal with it' is to not allow yourself to be further traumatized so that you can begin the healing process. Yes, life is full of trauma. Why extend a person's suffering needlessly to 'protect' one that doesn't exist?

You could tell her to just give the kid up for adoption. Have you considered the devastation that could be caused to both the woman and the kid when he or she shows up at her door 18 or 20 years down the road to find his or her 'birth parents' and discovers that he or she was the product of a rape and that the only reason he or she exists is because the state forced his or her mother to give birth?

[AHunter3]

Anyone have a ready cite on a case where an unmarried father took custody after the baby was born and then had the state impose child support payments to be taken from the mom over her objections?

[Mr. Moto]

Diogenes, you're saying a baby isn't a baby until it's born, and basing all of your arguments off of that rather facile definition. I can understand why you do so. It certainly simplifies matters and makes the moral lines very clear.

However, this definition id problematic to say the least.

You have kids. I'm guessing you saw them on the ultrasound screen. Did the ultrasound tech point to the screen and invite you to look at your fetus?

When your wife felt kicking, did she say the fetus was doing it?

I'm guessing no, because there's a common sense definition of "baby" at work here. This definition I'm sure you use IRL, though, is suddenly jettisoned when you have to defend your pro-choice views.

I don't buy it for a second, and I'm calling you on it.

[Shodan]

Forcing a victim to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape is cruel and inhumane to the pont of being sociopathic. It shows an utterly depraved lack of human compassion or empathy.
Unless a viable fetus is a separate human life, in which case you could only kill it for reasons that would equally justify killing a newborn, or a minor child.

If a viable fetus is a separate human life, then the suffering of the mother during a rape-induced pregnancy does not justify killing the fetus - unless other forms of suffering equally justify killing a new born.

If you read the first word of the thread title, you will better understand the parameters of the debate.

Regards,
Shodan

[kanicbird]

You can't make the trauma go away by saying you "don't buy" it.

You are correct, but is trauma suppose to just dissappear? I'm not saying to take the trauma away, but that we all have trauma's in our lives, and it is part of who we are. If there is a way to remove all trauma from humanity, would we be better off. I don't have the answer, but I suspect no.


Forcing a victim to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape is cruel and inhumane to the pont of being sociopathic. It shows an utterly depraved lack of human compassion or empathy.

And it seem like a ancient sacrificial ritual to kill an innocent baby as a result of a crime of another.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Diogenes, you're saying a baby isn't a baby until it's born, and basing all of your arguments off of that rather facile definition. I can understand why you do so. It certainly simplifies matters and makes the moral lines very clear.

However, this definition id problematic to say the least.

You have kids. I'm guessing you saw them on the ultrasound screen. Did the ultrasound tech point to the screen and invite you to look at your fetus?

When your wife felt kicking, did she say the fetus was doing it?

I'm guessing no, because there's a common sense definition of "baby" at work here. This definition I'm sure you use IRL, though, is suddenly jettisoned when you have to defend your pro-choice views.

I don't buy it for a second, and I'm calling you on it.
We did and do (we have one in the oven right now) refer to the fetuses as a "babies" and speak as if they are children before they are born. That does not mean that intellectually we don't know that biologically it's not really a baby yet. It's an execrcise in preparation for parenting, an expression of anticipation and excitement, etc. It's an emotional attitude not an intellectual or ideological one.

[treis]

You could tell her to just give the kid up for adoption. Have you considered the devastation that could be caused to both the woman and the kid when he or she shows up at her door 18 or 20 years down the road to find his or her 'birth parents' and discovers that he or she was the product of a rape and that the only reason he or she exists is because the state forced his or her mother to give birth?

OK say we have this hypothetical kid. At age 18 we go and tell him that he was concieved due to a rape. We also give him a gun and ask him if he would like to terminate his life at this point. What do you think he will do?

[catsix]

treis, you're presenting a false dichotomy in which the only two options are for this kid to be fine with the whole thing or commit suicide.

Finding out that he's the product of a rape and would not exist if the state hadn't forced his mother into it can completely fuck him up mentally without him killing himself.

How would you feel if you were told today that you were born solely because your mother was forced to carry the pregnancy of her rapist? Would that leave you messed up in the head and emotionally traumatized?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

OK say we have this hypothetical kid. At age 18 we go and tell him that he was concieved due to a rape. We also give him a gun and ask him if he would like to terminate his life at this point. What do you think he will do?
I used to know somebody who was conceived by a rape. He was unbelievably screwed up by it and did attempt suicide multiple times.

It's not a legitimate question anyway. If the pregnancy is terminated then there never is a person who will have to deal with finding that out.

[kanicbird]

Why should that rapist be further victimizing that woman by having to carry his child?

What good do you see in forcing someone to carry the pregnancy of a rapist? I see nothing but destruction.

The rapist is not further victomizing the woman, and besides the biological material he (we're assuming he here, but this can be flipped w/ some modification) has no claim on that child though he should be finitially responsible for the child. Why do you wish to victomize the baby?

Isn't killing the baby destruction? Are you infering that this child is somehow 'bad' due to the genetics of the rapist?


Yes, life is full of trauma. Why extend a person's suffering needlessly to 'protect' one that doesn't exist?

You could tell her to just give the kid up for adoption. Have you considered the devastation that could be caused to both the woman and the kid when he or she shows up at her door 18 or 20 years down the road to find his or her 'birth parents' and discovers that he or she was the product of a rape and that the only reason he or she exists is because the state forced his or her mother to give birth?

That last part is speculation, which I would say the child may reply "thank you for not aborting me". I don't know and neither do you.

Diogenes, you're saying a baby isn't a baby until it's born, and basing all of your arguments off of that rather facile definition. I can understand why you do so. It certainly simplifies matters and makes the moral lines very clear.

One way I heard the justification is that life begins at the decision of the mother. I don't buy this, it is putting humans on the same plane of God.

[The Asbestos Mango]

When is it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

To save the life of the mother? Yes.

To preserve the health of the mother? Um, I'll have to give this a qualified yes. The damage caused by carrying the baby to term would have to be severe and permanent.

Rape or incest? I'm with kanicbird on this one. Really, really not a fan of killing children for the crimes of their parents.

Mother simply doesn't want to have the kid? If you don't want to have a child, keep your legs crossed. If you don't feel this is feasible, then use the "Double Dutch" method of birth control- she takes the pill, he uses a condom. Yes, even this can fail, but failure would be extremely rare. Hell, if I got pregnant under those circumstances, I would figure this child was meant to exist, and who am I to say it nay?

Severe health problems in the unborn child? In most cases, no. I would make an exception for anencephaly. In this case, the child would definitely not survive for more than a few hours after birth, and I just can't see putting a woman through a pregnancy knowing that it will end in either a stillbirth or a child who would not live much beyond drawing its first breath.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The rapist is not further victomizing the woman,
No, the state is further victimizing the woman simply to further a purely religious definition of "personhood."
and besides the biological material he (we're assuming he here, but this can be flipped w/ some modification) has no claim on that child though he should be finitially responsible for the child. Why do you wish to victomize the baby?
There is no "child." There is no "baby." There is only a pregnancy.
Isn't killing the baby destruction? Are you infering that this child is somehow 'bad' due to the genetics of the rapist?
There is no baby.
That last part is speculation, which I would say the child may reply "thank you for not aborting me". I don't know and neither do you.
There is no child.
One way I heard the justification is that life begins at the decision of the mother. I don't buy this, it is putting humans on the same plane of God.
Unntil you can prove that there is any such thing as a "God" then humans have to take charge of their own lives.

[treis]

How would you feel if you were told today that you were born solely because your mother was forced to carry the pregnancy of her rapist? Would that leave you messed up in the head and emotionally traumatized?

Honestly? I haven't the slightest clue how I would feel. It personally probably wouldn't bother me very much, I would rather be alive due to a rape than dead.

It's not a legitimate question anyway. If the pregnancy is terminated then there never is a person who will have to deal with finding that out.

It is a legitimate question. If you feel that a fetus is a human life than you cannot end that life without its consent. Age 18 is the age in this country that we deem people to become adults. If this hypothetical adult feels so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life. I will not make that decision for him.

[faithfool]

[Following along behind the lead of AHunter3 in GQ mode]

What if, say the woman has long since decided that she doesn't want children due to what she can/will pass on to them (IE: in my case, a very extensive family history of mental illness), yet is then raped?

In this instance, as far as I can tell, part (or most) of her dilemma is due to concern for the life of the child *after* it's born and what it will face, even in adoption by a loving, desirous family. To me, choosing to terminate the pregnancy, no matter how difficult, would be an act of love and mercy (and I know, because I would have preferred this as a fetus versus my life, but obviously, YMMV). Saving the baby from growing up with an already attached stigma, dealing with something that may be untreatable or far beyond their abilities (resulting in being disowned, suicide, etc.) and/or then eventually passing it on to *their* offspring in a view of apathy, disdain for the condition (or being traumatized/numbed against it) or not understanding the nature of the beast.

This is what I would do. Could someone help by explaining to me what is expected of a woman when she already has the best interests of the baby in mind, yet is usurped by horrible, unforeseeable circumstances? I'm just not sure I see the break-down of logic applied here.

[/end of AH3 GQ mode]

[treis]

Diogenes-

You are debating from the position that abortion is moral, life doesn't begin at conception and that a fetus has no status as personhood. This debate is about pro-lifers and if any situation is acceptable for abortion. We are debating under the assumption that abortion is wrong, life begins at conception and the fetus is a person.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Diogenes-

You are debating from the position that abortion is moral, life doesn't begin at conception and that a fetus has no status as personhood. This debate is about pro-lifers and if any situation is acceptable for abortion. We are debating under the assumption that abortion is wrong, life begins at conception and the fetus is a person.
You're right. The OP was directed at pro-lifers. I shouldn't have inserted myself into a debate I wasn't invited into. I will withdraw from the thread.

[The Asbestos Mango]

Dio I disagree with you on a lot of issues, sometimes violently, but I gotta say that was the most graceful bow-out from a thread that I've ever read.

Kudos to you for being a gentleman.

[Mr. Moto]

Same here, Diogenes. Best of luck with your new baby.

[JohnClay]

kanicbird:
Could you say how long after conception a pregnant woman has a baby (or "child")? I mean say she was raped and within a week she took a pregnancy test (or whatever the minimum time those tests work) and she found that she was pregnant, does she have a baby inside of her?

[JohnClay]

Just to add to the original post, a scenario which involves "conception" and abortion that many support (which some pro-lifers might also support) involves scientists making a sperm and an egg get together in a laboratory, then screening it for severe disabilities (there could be tradition of life-threatening hereditary problems in that family)... if the scientists found it they could kill the fertilized egg. I wonder if pro-lifers would think that is killing a human baby... - or if it is morally acceptable....

[faithfool]

It is a legitimate question. If you feel that a fetus is a human life than you cannot end that life without its consent. Age 18 is the age in this country that we deem people to become adults. If this hypothetical adult feels so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life. I will not make that decision for him.

Last of all, why is there a presumption that everyone would have chosen life versus abortion if given the opportunity in the womb? I know *I* wouldn't have. But it doesn't matter, because saying that if they feel ".... so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life." is naive at best. Perhaps they've been raised with a moral ideology that prevents them from suicide. Or they just can't bring themselves to go through with it, much like you saying that you "will not make that decision for him." Or any of a thousand different scenarios that we can't fathom unless we know after the fact about the circumstances surrounding what happened before our mother became pregnant.

I just don't see how one can claim that this side is 'playing God' by choosing termination and not feel that *they* are doing exactly the same thing, but only *after* birth and for the rest of this person's existence. It confounds me and sometimes I loathe/detest/resent/can't fathom why over the long term that my mother for picking the option that she did. It was the easy way out for her and *I* pay the penalty. I'm not in the least appreciative. But there you go. Another side to the coin that's very rarely mentioned.

Whoops. Upon preview I see that someone has pointed out this was a Pro-Life debate only. My apologies as well. I, too, will take myself out of this thread and my big ol' mouth elsewhere. Again, I'm so sorry.

[kanicbird]

No, the state is further victimizing the woman simply to further a purely religious definition of "personhood."

Yes Thanks DtC, for a bow out, but I must address this as it is important to clarify. The OP is about morality, not legality. We as have free will and are able of doing immoral actions.

Could you say how long after conception a pregnant woman has a baby (or "child")? I mean say she was raped and within a week she took a pregnancy test (or whatever the minimum time those tests work) and she found that she was pregnant, does she have a baby inside of her?

I have to say I don't know. I have come up with several theories, such as since life ends w/ the stop of brain activity, so life begins w/ it. Life begins the moment the sperm and egg combine, or at the 1st cell division, life has begun before the woman's body recognizes the pregnancy.

All are separate theories I hold, and I don't know which one is the true one, but I personally think I am on safe ground is that human life begins or has already begun at the point that brain activity begins. I also feel pretty safe to say that when sperm and egg are not combined there is no separate human life.

So somewhere between conception and brainwaves, including the limits.

again this is how I see it, and feel it in my heart.

[kanicbird]

Just to add to the original post, a scenario which involves "conception" and abortion that many support (which some pro-lifers might also support) involves scientists making a sperm and an egg get together in a laboratory, then screening it for severe disabilities (there could be tradition of life-threatening hereditary problems in that family)... if the scientists found it they could kill the fertilized egg. I wonder if pro-lifers would think that is killing a human baby... - or if it is morally acceptable....


This goes into another sub-debate. If a fetus is fully human, Does a fetus have a right to use that womb as long as s/he does not cause excessive damage in the process?

[Lord Ashtar]

Of course? Why "of course"? If life begins at conception then it begins at conception from rape and incest as well. The fetus/child is not a party to whatever activity that led to its existence.

I have always found the rape or incest exception to be philosophically troubling. Indeed it seems to me to give lie to the claim of pro-lifers that it's all about the innocent unborn child. When you invoke the rape or inceat exception what you seem to be saying in effect is "Well, the mother wasn't an immoral slut so she shouldn't be punished for having sex." While that's over the top, it's really what it comes down to, isn't it?
I've been struggling with this a lot recently as well. It always seems to be an afterthought, especially for politicians (but should I be expecting any different?). The Republicans are usually "pro-life, except in cases of rape and incest". I just don't get why it's morally okay to kill a baby if the mother was raped or got pregnant from her brother/father/uncle.

[Ludovic]

The "biological burden" argument is right on, dude! After all, the burden of childbirth is why women live such shorter lives than men.....

(Not saying men should necessarily not have fiscal responsibility for a baby, just that in the balance of things, women having the upper hand in deciding if there will be a fiscal burden rings hollow when faced with overall lifespan rates.)

Oh, and I have a hormonal bonding issue with a girl I knew in high school. If I didn't suck it up and realize I have to live my own life I'd be described as "creepy". Come to think of it, the various women who carried a child for someone else per a legal contract, then decided to keep it for themselves aren't completely lacking creepiness.

[threemae]

Damnit, damnit, damnit! I really put my mouth into my foot on this one. I meant pro-choicers, NOT pro-lifers. How could I screw that up?

What I was really asking is why women have an absolute right to terminate their parental rights/obligations while men don't have the same rights. I'm refering to uncomplicated pregancy in healthy individuals where the main objection to the pregnancy is convenience factors.

Uhhg, why can't you people read what I mean instead of reading what I say?

[Essured]

Damnit, damnit, damnit! I really put my mouth into my foot on this one. I meant pro-choicers, NOT pro-lifers. How could I screw that up?
Maybe email a mod and ask them to fix it?

What I was really asking is why women have an absolute right to terminate their parental rights/obligations while men don't have the same rights. I'm refering to uncomplicated pregancy in healthy individuals where the main objection to the pregnancy is convenience factors.

Before answering this, I'd really like to know what you mean by "convenience factors". If you think an unwanted pregnancy is 'inconvenient', then there's not much I can say, since I know many people who would kill themselves before continuing a pregnancy, if nothing else worked. That would indicate that for them pregnancy is quite a bit more than just 'inconvenient'.

And why does the woman have the absolute right? Because biology makes it so. Unfortunately, the female of the species has to endure any emotional and physical consequences of aborting or continuing a pregnancy. This is why the choice is hers. It's a better situation if both female and male discuss and agree (even better if they do so prior to having sex) on what to do, but if there's a disagreement, the tie breaker is the woman's since she'll be the one undergoing the actual procedure (birth or abortion).
Once the child is born, it needs to be cared for. This may be by the biological parents, or may be by adopted parents, however unless someone else legally accepts the rights and responsibilities of the child, the financial responsibility belongs to the two who created it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Damnit, damnit, damnit! I really put my mouth into my foot on this one. I meant pro-choicers, NOT pro-lifers. How could I screw that up?

What I was really asking is why women have an absolute right to terminate their parental rights/obligations while men don't have the same rights. I'm refering to uncomplicated pregancy in healthy individuals where the main objection to the pregnancy is convenience factors.

Uhhg, why can't you people read what I mean instead of reading what I say?
Terminating a pregnancy is not a termination of parental obligations. She never was a parent.

[faithfool]

Oh good then. So we can participate. Do I need to reiterate my questions or do they stand well enough as they are now? Or we can just pretend they're not there and ignore my muddle-headedness. (Ya know, since I'm usually afraid of venturing into GD territory and I'm more than a little worried about coming across as a ignorant dolt.)

[Abbie Carmichael]

the burden of childbirth is why women live such shorter lives than men.....

Say what?

In all developed countries and almost all underdeveloped ones, women outlive men.

[Ludovic]

Say what?

In all developed countries and almost all underdeveloped ones, women outlive men.Whoooooosh!

[treis]

I guess now I don't qualify for the thread but I'll respond anyway.

Last of all, why is there a presumption that everyone would have chosen life versus abortion if given the opportunity in the womb? I know *I* wouldn't have. But it doesn't matter, because saying that if they feel ".... so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life." is naive at best. Perhaps they've been raised with a moral ideology that prevents them from suicide. Or they just can't bring themselves to go through with it, much like you saying that you "will not make that decision for him." Or any of a thousand different scenarios that we can't fathom unless we know after the fact about the circumstances surrounding what happened before our mother became pregnant.

I agree that its a sticky situation but I don't think the solution is to kill the fetus. I would hope that the child would get counseling and therapy it could have a somewhat happy life. I don't claim to have all the answers but I can't see how killing is the best solution.


I just don't see how one can claim that this side is 'playing God' by choosing termination and not feel that *they* are doing exactly the same thing, but only *after* birth and for the rest of this person's existence. It confounds me and sometimes I loathe/detest/resent/can't fathom why over the long term that my mother for picking the option that she did. It was the easy way out for her and *I* pay the penalty. I'm not in the least appreciative. But there you go. Another side to the coin that's very rarely mentioned.

Well I don't think I am playing God. I am not the rapist I just want to protect innocent life.

[faithfool]

Well I don't think I am playing God. I am not the rapist I just want to protect innocent life.

Thanks for answering me treis, finally I'm not completely invisible here in Great Debates. Anyway, what I meant by the "playing God" across the board statement was that one can't know. Pro-Choicers cannot know for certain that life doesn't begin at conception or any other convictions they may hold. Similarly, Pro-Lifers cannot know for certain that any kind of better life, to any degree, is preferable to abortion. As in my case, I think that would have not only been the right thing to do, but it certainly would have been an improvement. And despite what my absence in life may or may not offer to those around me, it is my decision of what I'd have had my mother "choose" no matter what anyone else believes to the contrary.

Futhermore, again can some- /any- one answer this part of my first post:

What if, say the woman has long since decided that she doesn't want children due to what she can/will pass on to them (IE: in my case, a very extensive family history of mental illness), yet is then raped?

In this instance, as far as I can tell, part (or most) of her dilemma is due to concern for the life of the child *after* it's born and what it will face, even in adoption by a loving, desirous family. To me, choosing to terminate the pregnancy, no matter how difficult, would be an act of love and mercy (and I know, because I would have preferred this as a fetus versus my life, but obviously, YMMV). Saving the baby from growing up with an already attached stigma, dealing with something that may be untreatable or far beyond their abilities (resulting in being disowned, suicide, etc.) and/or then eventually passing it on to *their* offspring in a view of apathy, disdain for the condition (or being traumatized/numbed against it) or not understanding the nature of the beast.

That's what I feel in my heart would be the best gift to give to the one everyone agrees is the innocent party here. I would never bring a child into the world to even potentially face that. Just assuming that they might not have or may be able to overcome it wouldn't be good enough for me. That is where I'd believe I was playing God in the other direction. Gambling about what I'd *hope* for versus a reality that has a possible chance of turning out that way because there's already a known commodity in play (or a history, whatever). I guess I'm just not quite understanding all the sides, but I'll continue to try.

[Lord Ashtar]

Terminating a pregnancy is not a termination of parental obligations. She never was a parent.
I thought you were leaving.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I thought you were leaving.
It turns out I was invited after all. Didn't you get the memo?
Damnit, damnit, damnit! I really put my mouth into my foot on this one. I meant pro-choicers, NOT pro-lifers. How could I screw that up?

[Lord Ashtar]

:smack: Apparently, I didn't. Never mind.

[Iskatel]

So, pro-lifers, in what situations does a woman have a right to obtain an abortion?
I'm somewhat split on the issue. I believe both sides are right (that isn't an impossibility).

But I'll speak for the pro-life side of me: only in cases of rape, or medical danger to the mother or child.

That seems pretty simple and reasonable to the pro-life side of me. The rape thing is a little trickier. I would prefer state recompense and medical care for the duration of the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, but that is still somewhat of stealing 9 months of a woman's life, and it is still a very traumatic event (as a whole).

[faithfool]

In addition to what Iskatel mentions as a very traumatic event to the woman if she's raped, can you imagine what kind of damage that would do to the child if she kept and was honest about the conception? I mean, one hopes that the love she offered would overcome that (especially if she said things like "I wanted you so badly no matter how you got here. I loved you from the moment I knew and couldn't bear losing you in any way."), but again, there's no guarantee. And they would grow up with that knowledge, hating their "father," not knowing pertinent medical information and possibly wondering if it was predisposed through genetics that they'd either do the same thing or destined to have it happen to them because they somehow deserved it. That sounds so unbelievably horrible to thrust that willing on someone.

[Nobody]

Pregnancy carries with it many health risks, including the risk of diabetes, permanent back problems, infertility from an infection or botched delivery, and hormonal changes, which can take several years to go back to "normal" (pre-pregnancy levels). Also, there is often a hormone-influenced bond that forms between the mother and the baby once the baby is born, which inhibits adoption. Carrying a baby to term is a much bigger investment than, say, leaving a cake in the oven the full twenty minutes.
The OP already addressed cases where the health of the mother is threatened. I was only talking about healthy pregnancies.

[Nobody]

If that was the case, how could anyone ever call themselves pro-life? What you are describing sounds to me like pro-choice, rather than pro-life.

Anything I've ever read or heard about the pro-life point of view is that the woman never has any right to terminate a pregnancy and that the right of the unborn to be born is the only right that there is.
For those of us in the mainstream pro-life movement, if the life of the mother is in danger, her life trumps that of the unborn child.

[Iskatel]

In addition to what Iskatel mentions as a very traumatic event to the woman if she's raped, can you imagine what kind of damage that would do to the child if she kept and was honest about the conception?
Wow, you know what, that's something I never actually thought about. I guess in my idealistic mind the child would never know, but that is obviously a profound psychological marker, even beyond that of being an adopted kid.

And it raises a number of questions: When the kid is of appropriate age, do they have a right to know this information? Should it be made available by the birth mother, the adoptive parent(s), or the state/adoption agency?

*ponders*

[Iskatel]

Anything I've ever read or heard about the pro-life point of view is that the woman never has any right to terminate a pregnancy and that the right of the unborn to be born is the only right that there is.
For those of us in the mainstream pro-life movement, if the life of the mother is in danger, her life trumps that of the unborn child.
I agree, I don't know what you've "ever" heard or read about the pro-life movement, but the mainstream attitude is (at the min) abortion being allowed in life-threatening cases (logically, even considering both as people, the prospective mother has rights the fetus can not express or have - consider it like a conjoined twin in a car accident case...)

[kanicbird]

And why does the woman have the absolute right? Because biology makes it so.

Actually I would say the opposite, she has responsibility for the well being of the unborn child because boilogy makes it so.

Terminating a pregnancy is not a termination of parental obligations. She never was a parent.

DtC didn't you bow out, and even were complemented in doing so?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Actually I would say the opposite, she has responsibility for the well being of the unborn child because boilogy makes it so.



DtC didn't you bow out, and even were complemented in doing so?
Catch up on the thread. You're the second person to ask me this.

And no, a woman has no obligation to carry a pregnancy that she doesn't want to carry. Her body, her choice. There is no "baby."

[Iskatel]

Actually I would say the opposite, she has responsibility for the well being of the unborn child because boilogy makes it so.
Switching sides of my brain and becoming pro-choice for a moment, what mandate does biology have over this? Is there a biological law that a pregnant animal must carry through the pregnancy?

*switches back to pro-life*

But yes, she is responsible for the unborn child (taking off the "because biology makes it so"). I agree with this in the case of the mother abusing drugs and other dangers to the fetus, and if someone kills the fetus but not the mother, that it is a crime. Some of the lines get really blurry around that area.

[Iskatel]

if someone kills the fetus
Whoops. I made a statement that can be challenged here - of course, "the fetus is not a living thing" would be the counter-argument, which leads us to the debate, what is life?

I personally feel that the mother and fetus are in a symbiotic relationship with each other, and that yes, the fetus is a separate entity from the mother (though maybe not fully "alive")

And I've yet to see a definition of what is "life"

[faithfool]

Wow, you know what, that's something I never actually thought about. I guess in my idealistic mind the child would never know, but that is obviously a profound psychological marker, even beyond that of being an adopted kid.

And it raises a number of questions: When the kid is of appropriate age, do they have a right to know this information? Should it be made available by the birth mother, the adoptive parent(s), or the state/adoption agency?

*ponders*

Iskatel, you rock for considering both sides of the opinions. Very open minded of you. That's what I'm hoping to learn out of all this, the best information from each position.

Your questions are also extremely good. I'm going to have to give them some thought to, but my gut reaction is that the circumstances should definitely be made to the adoption agency and future parents. The child once s/he is of adult age? I dunno.

::: goes off to ponder beside Iskatel :::

[davenportavenger]

The OP already addressed cases where the health of the mother is threatened. I was only talking about healthy pregnancies.
None of those conditions I listed would affect the life of the mother. True, they might not all happen, but conditions like gestational diabetes and toxoplasmia (sp?) are more common than you'd think, and could have potentially disabling, if not necessarily deadly, consequences. The hormonal changes, at least, are definite and to some extent permanent. A woman goes through irreversible changes as a result of pregnancy--some physical, some mental, and not all of them good.

And I'd have to say, without doubt, that if I knew I was a product of rape, I would rather have been aborted than live to face that fact. I think I would interpret my own birth as an act of cruelty; I could never forgive myself for the pain my birth put my mother through, and it would be even worse if she'd kept me. Hell, for years I thought that about myself, and I'm not a rapist's child, just an unwanted child. Not everyone desires life over non-life.

[kanicbird]

Switching sides of my brain and becoming pro-choice for a moment, what mandate does biology have over this? Is there a biological law that a pregnant animal must carry through the pregnancy?

Sorry I slipped up, there is a moral law, not a biological law not to kill your offspring. The point is that women are at a biological disadvantage for this issue since they are the only ones who can become pregnant.


Wait a sec. is this thread for people who wish unborn babies to be legally killed, perhaps I should bow out.

[Nobody]

Three things: First, I'm really glad that there are a couple of other people on, or at least, who seem to be on my side. I was scared that I would get pilled up on by people who don't share my point of view; Second, I'm really glad this debate is civil. Usually topics like this get emotional and things get really ugly really fast, on both sides; And third...

For those who don't believe that the unborn child isn't an actual baby, why? Because the SCOTUS says it isn't?
I hear some people say that it doesn't count as a person until it has brain activity. Well, according to
Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.
As well as a bunch of other things that already happened and are happening such as the forming of the backbone spinal column and nervous system.
If these things don't make it a baby, why not?

[Mr. Moto]

Exactly the question I posed to Diogenes, and one that has him tap dancing more than Gregory Hines.

[Iskatel]

Iskatel

::: goes off to ponder beside Iskatel :::
*blush* thanks much. I hope everyone can gain something answering these kinds of questions, and at least consider the other side.


Wait a sec. is this thread for people who wish unborn babies to be legally killed, perhaps I should bow out.
*pro-choice again, I'm like a freaking Transformer*

Even as a person on the fence (I typically say, I could not make such a choice on a personal level, but I also can not deny it to all women, but since I'm not a woman, it is a moot point - I just understand their POV), I still have to ask the question - is an unborn fetus capable of being killed? Meaning, is there life there in the first place? Or is it something akin to any other kind of growth - a cancer, or a wart? Do we have to respect the rights of the tape worm you pick up? (obviously an absurd and scientifically inaccurate question, but the point is to think a bit about it) All are growths from the body tissues - the difference is that one (depending on the time of growth) has the potential to become a human being.

If you haven't bowed out yet, what is a human being, and when does it become alive?

[Nobody]

None of those conditions I listed would affect the life of the mother. True, they might not all happen, but conditions like gestational diabetes and toxoplasmia (sp?) are more common than you'd think, and could have potentially disabling, if not necessarily deadly, consequences. The hormonal changes, at least, are definite and to some extent permanent. A woman goes through irreversible changes as a result of pregnancy--some physical, some mental, and not all of them good.
I'm sorry, but I've seen to many women with lots of kids to think of pregancy as a bad or dangerous or harmful thing. I have a cousin with 5, and coworker with 4. Women get pregnant all the time and have been for thousands of years.
I'm not saying that the things you mentioned don't happen, I'm just saying that, in general, most women are just fine after a pregnancy.

And I'd have to say, without doubt, that if I knew I was a product of rape, I would rather have been aborted than live to face that fact. I think I would interpret my own birth as an act of cruelty; I could never forgive myself for the pain my birth put my mother through, and it would be even worse if she'd kept me. Hell, for years I thought that about myself, and I'm not a rapist's child, just an unwanted child. Not everyone desires life over non-life.
I'm sorry you felt that way. Nobody should feel that way, but just as you felt that way, and you weren't the victom of a rape, the opposite can also be true.

[Nobody]

Exactly the question I posed to Diogenes, and one that has him tap dancing more than Gregory Hines.
:D that's a good one.

[kanicbird]

Even as a person on the fence (I typically say, I could not make such a choice on a personal level, but I also can not deny it to all women, but since I'm not a woman, it is a moot point - I just understand their POV), I still have to ask the question - is an unborn fetus capable of being killed? Meaning, is there life there in the first place? Or is it something akin to any other kind of growth - a cancer, or a wart? Do we have to respect the rights of the tape worm you pick up? (obviously an absurd and scientifically inaccurate question, but the point is to think a bit about it) All are growths from the body tissues - the difference is that one (depending on the time of growth) has the potential to become a human being.

If you haven't bowed out yet, what is a human being, and when does it become alive?

I will answer direct questions, but will bow out of the OP.

I have already defined that human life begins somewhere between conception and the start of brainwave activity (Including the limits, meaning that life may begin at conception, or for that mater the start of brain wave activity, or anywhere inbetween), and I have stated I don't exactly know where it begins.

The womb is a nessesary enviroment for he survival of the fetus, and like laws that alow me to tresspass on your private property for emergency survival situations, a fetus has that moral right to the womb it has implanted itself into.

[kanicbird]

Even as a person on the fence (I typically say, I could not make such a choice on a personal level, but I also can not deny it to all women, but since I'm not a woman, it is a moot point

I hate this POV, it is such a cop out, by the same reasoning you should not decide on a murder case unless you have murdered someone.

[Iskatel]

The womb is a nessesary enviroment for he survival of the fetus, and like laws that alow me to tresspass on your private property for emergency survival situations, a fetus has that moral right to the womb it has implanted itself into.
I'm sorry, but I have to turn this argument against you. The body of the woman is her own property - the fetus is a "growth" on/in it. It can be validly argued that the fetus is trespassing on the womb of the woman, and it is her choice to allow it to or not.

Your argument is similar to saying that if someone sets up a tent on your lawn because they're homeless, they have the right because they've implanted themselves into it.

[Iskatel]

I hate this POV, it is such a cop out, by the same reasoning you should not decide on a murder case unless you have murdered someone.
Granted. But the difference is that I have the capability to murder, and murder legislation can directly affect my choices and operations. I can't, however hard I try (and I do try) get pregnant.

[kanicbird]

Your argument is similar to saying that if someone sets up a tent on your lawn because they're homeless, they have the right because they've implanted themselves into it.


No I'm saying if it is needed for their very survival then legally you MUST provide it (or they can take it).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Three things: First, I'm really glad that there are a couple of other people on, or at least, who seem to be on my side. I was scared that I would get pilled up on by people who don't share my point of view; Second, I'm really glad this debate is civil. Usually topics like this get emotional and things get really ugly really fast, on both sides; And third...

For those who don't believe that the unborn child isn't an actual baby, why? Because the SCOTUS says it isn't?
I hear some people say that it doesn't count as a person until it has brain activity. Well, according to

As well as a bunch of other things that already happened and are happening such as the forming of the backbone spinal column and nervous system.
If these things don't make it a baby, why not?
A frog has all those things too. That doesn't make it a person.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I hate this POV, it is such a cop out, by the same reasoning you should not decide on a murder case unless you have murdered someone.
No it isn't. It's more like saying you think homosexuality is a sin but you don't think you have the right to tell others what to do. It's about not imposing a purely religious opinion on others.

[kanicbird]

Granted. But the difference is that I have the capability to murder, and murder legislation can directly affect my choices and operations. I can't, however hard I try (and I do try) get pregnant.

By this you are saying it is not in your reality, but before you said I just understand their POV

So which is it, and either side you take you will have to reconsider something you said earlier.

Please pick a side and stick w/ it, you are starting to sound like a recent democratic canidate.

[davenportavenger]

No I'm saying if it is needed for their very survival then legally you MUST provide it (or they can take it).
So we shouldn't prosecute people who rob pharmacies to obtain life-sustaining medicines?
So we should fund more public hospitals and public health programs, so that people who need surgeries for survival but can't afford them can get them?
So if a starving homeless person showed up on your doorstep, you would take them in and feed them?

I hope you're a lefty on economic issues, cause otherwise that's a pretty hypocritical statement.

[kanicbird]

No it isn't. It's more like saying you think homosexuality is a sin but you don't think you have the right to tell others what to do. It's about not imposing a purely religious opinion on others

We are talking about morals, not law and not religion in the OP, that is unless I missed another critical memo.

There is a moral law so to speak, but the ability to enforce it is also a moral issue. I don't give the state the moral right to enforce all moral issues. We can say that homosexuality is morally wrong, but also have no moral right to stop it in others. This is where free will has to enter the picture. People have the right to make mistakes that effect themselves, but not their baby.

You like to say that they is no baby, but I don't believe in your heart that you believe this for a second. However lets see how cold your heart really is:

Should someone be held accountable by ending a pregnancy of a women who wants that baby?

[kanicbird]

So we shouldn't prosecute people who rob pharmacies to obtain life-sustaining medicines?
So we should fund more public hospitals and public health programs, so that people who need surgeries for survival but can't afford them can get them?

For these 2 we do already, no hospital can deny emergency medical care in the US, no need to rob anyone.


So if a starving homeless person showed up on your doorstep, you would take them in and feed them?


Using the above they have the ability to go to the nearest hospital to get live saving, well in this case food.

[Essured]

No I'm saying if it is needed for their very survival then legally you MUST provide it (or they can take it).

Kanicbird, like you I believe the fetus is a living human being. The only difference between a fetus and a toddler, IMO, is time, nurture and relocation.
That said, I disagree strongly with your above statement. Does this mean you're in favour of forceable organ donation and blood donation? I have two kidneys. I am a match for Joe Blow down the road. He will die without my kidney.
Can he legally force me to take it?
Does he have a moral right to take my kidney?

Should laws = morals?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

We are talking about morals, not law and not religion in the OP, that is unless I missed another critical memo.
The OP was also talking to pro-choicers.

And the belief that a blastocyte is a person is purely religious.
There is a moral law so to speak, but the ability to enforce it is also a moral issue. I don't give the state the moral right to enforce all moral issues. We can say that homosexuality is morally wrong, but also have no moral right to stop it in others. This is where free will has to enter the picture. People have the right to make mistakes that effect themselves, but not their baby.
There is no baby. You saying it is so does not make it so. You are trying to codify a religious belief into law. Trying to get the governmemnt to say a zygote is a person is no different than trying to get the government to say a dog is a person. It's purely a faith based belief.
You like to say that they is no baby, but I don't believe in your heart that you believe this for a second.
I do believe it. Absolutely. There is no baby. I have no belief in "souls," or the like so I define a "baby" in purely biological terms. If something has not yet developed any sentience, it isn't a person, as far as I'm concerned.
However lets see how cold your heart really is:

Should someone be held accountable by ending a pregnancy of a women who wants that baby?
Yes. But the victim is the woman, not the fetus. It is a disgusting and horrific violation of that woman both physically and emotionally.

[El Zagna]

Your two hypothetical situations are completely different. In the first one, comparing a woman's grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.
...
I'm going to ask for some clarification on this point:

"-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? "

My understanding is, if a woman says no, and the guy proceeds to have sex with her in spite of her refusal, that IS rape.If that's your definition of rape then I've been raped, so I can speak from personal experience that rape's not always that big a deal. I'll experience worse traumas than that on most any given week. If you were offended by my earlier comparison I would hope you would be doubly offended if I were to offer condolences to a real raped-by-a-stranger-at-the-point-of-a-knife victim by saying, "Oh, I understand what you're going through. Y'know I was raped once myself."

Not all rapes are alike, not all rape victims are alike, and not all rape traumas are alike. Neither you nor I can know how a rape victim will cope with the experience. The same can be said about any kind of traumatic experience. The short and long term consequences will vary dramatically from person to person.

This OP is about which situations may justify abortions, and I have talked about the rape and incest exception to the abortion proscription. If one's anti-abortion stand is based on the idea that life begins at conception, then I don't see how you can justify abortion even in the case of rape or incest. The fetus is not guilty of any crime.

On the other hand if your exception to an abortion ban is based on trauma to the woman, then I don't see rape or incest as necessarily an event that would cause more trauma to the woman than any number of other factors.

As I see it, he only legitimate reasoning for the rape or incest exception is if your objection to abortion is based on some kind of slutty-women-should-pay-for-getting-themselves-knocked-up thinking. That, at least, is logically consistent.

[davenportavenger]

You like to say that they is no baby, but I don't believe in your heart that you believe this for a second. However lets see how cold your heart really is:

Should someone be held accountable by ending a pregnancy of a women who wants that baby?
Ah, so you're a heart-reader. How black is mine, praytell?

Yes, the attacker should be held accountable in that situation, because he/she has assaulted the woman, as well as deprived her of her property (the fetus, not being an independent entity, is classified as bodily property). It's not murder, because the fetus isn't a human life. It's a life in the way that a parasite is alive, but it is not the same as you or me. IMO, of course, but in this case science and the law are on my side.

Crazy hypothetical time: it's the year 2798. You come back from Venus infested with a sentient parasite. It's dormant now, but in a year it will explode out of your stomach (which will be very painful, but only carries a slight risk of death, say five percent), and will be able to speak perfect English and play the piano beautifully. You didn't ask to be infested with this parasite--it attached itself to you without your knowledge while you were out collecting rock samples. You don't want it in you. Do you have the right to get rid of it?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ah, so you're a heart-reader. How black is mine, praytell?

Yes, the attacker should be held accountable in that situation, because he/she has assaulted the woman, as well as deprived her of her property (the fetus, not being an independent entity, is classified as bodily property). It's not murder, because the fetus isn't a human life. It's a life in the way that a parasite is alive, but it is not the same as you or me. IMO, of course, but in this case science and the law are on my side.

Crazy hypothetical time: it's the year 2798. You come back from Venus infested with a sentient parasite. It's dormant now, but in a year it will explode out of your stomach (which will be very painful, but only carries a slight risk of death, say five percent), and will be able to speak perfect English and play the piano beautifully. You didn't ask to be infested with this parasite--it attached itself to you without your knowledge while you were out collecting rock samples. You don't want it in you. Do you have the right to get rid of it?
I like the hypothetical but let;s also assume that the alien Bible says it's a sin for puny humans to abort the alien "baby."

[faithfool]

.... There is a moral law so to speak, but the ability to enforce it is also a moral issue. I don't give the state the moral right to enforce all moral issues. We can say that homosexuality is morally wrong, but also have no moral right to stop it in others. This is where free will has to enter the picture. People have the right to make mistakes that effect themselves, but not their baby. ....

Bolding mine.

See, that *is* the point I'm trying to make. Since the baby is blameless, we shouldn't enforce a life on them that isn't as good as we can make it. Hardships aside, you (generally speaking) thrust a child into a world with already several strikes against them, is IMHO, just wrong. Now I realize that the "life isn't fair" argument can be used here, but that's where I think the parents come in to make responsible decisions for the future. Mainly, the potential humans, much less emphasis should be put on their own.

bnorton said it best, although I think we see from opposite sides of this issue. "The fetus is not guilty of any crime." And therefore should be held culpable for passed along mental illness, being the child of rape (any kind) or incest, such abject poverty that stealing, etc. might be considered standard and necessary and/or subjected to abusive (sexually, physically, mentally, chemically) treatment. That, again IMHO, is what is the absolute most important. My morality for myself is irrelevant compared to what *life,* through me, has available to offer them. Because they are the ones who'll have to actually live it.

[treis]

Thanks for answering me treis, finally I'm not completely invisible here in Great Debates. Anyway, what I meant by the "playing God" across the board statement was that one can't know. Pro-Choicers cannot know for certain that life doesn't begin at conception or any other convictions they may hold. Similarly, Pro-Lifers cannot know for certain that any kind of better life, to any degree, is preferable to abortion. As in my case, I think that would have not only been the right thing to do, but it certainly would have been an improvement. And despite what my absence in life may or may not offer to those around me, it is my decision of what I'd have had my mother "choose" no matter what anyone else believes to the contrary.

Faithfool I am debating here as an atheist opposed to abortion. God and religion do not play into my opinions. Let me also add that this situation sucks. I mean it really fucking sucks and it sucks that society has to come and clean up the mess.

I am also wavering back and forth on this one too. I certainly don't support forcing the woman to raise the child. I guess I believe that with proper counseling and treatment this child could have a relatively happy life. When in doubt I choose life over death.


That's what I feel in my heart would be the best gift to give to the one everyone agrees is the innocent party here. I would never bring a child into the world to even potentially face that.

If a child loses his parents in a tragic accident we don't kill the child becuase he will have to face hardship. I guess I don't want the child killed becuase I would rather the mother suffer for 9 months than to kill an innocent life.

[The Asbestos Mango]

Crazy hypothetical time: it's the year 2798. You come back from Venus infested with a sentient parasite. It's dormant now, but in a year it will explode out of your stomach (which will be very painful, but only carries a slight risk of death, say five percent), and will be able to speak perfect English and play the piano beautifully. You didn't ask to be infested with this parasite--it attached itself to you without your knowledge while you were out collecting rock samples. You don't want it in you. Do you have the right to get rid of it?

I would say it depends on how the parasite was acquired, and how sentient it was when I acquired it.

First off, if I was out collecting rock samples on Venus, I would very likely be wearing some kind of insulated suit with lots of coolant between the layers and a breathing apparatus, so the liklihood of my picking up such a parasite would be vanishingly remote.

Now, let's say I get back to the space capsule, and notice that one of the rock samples is, er, interestingly shaped, and, having been deprived of the company of the male of our species for far too long, decide to, er, amuse myself with it. Unbeknownst to me, there is a small parasite larva on the rock which, purely following raw instinct, finds its way into my uterus and takes up residence. I would say that, since the parasite is essentially innocent, sentient, and in all likelihood will do me no harm, beyond some severe discomfort, I would say that no, I don't have the right to get rid of it. Also, I'm partial to the earlier music of Elton John, which is very piano-heavy.

OTOH, if the parasite were a miniature version of the adult, or at least had the intellectual capacities of an adult, and took advantage of an opportunity presented as I was bending over to pick up a dropped towel after I stepped out of the shower, I would say that the parasite had no more right to inhabit my personal space than I would to force someone to donate a kidney to me if I needed it, and Elton John be damned. In that case I would have a right to get rid of it, because the parasite had knowingly forced itself upon me.

[faithfool]

I am also wavering back and forth on this one too. I certainly don't support forcing the woman to raise the child. I guess I believe that with proper counseling and treatment this child could have a relatively happy life. When in doubt I choose life over death.

I do understand where you're coming from. I used to be a very staunch Pro-Life advocate, but the above statement was one of the things that help change my mind. I can't, in good conscience, just hope for the better opportunities that my offspring might face. I couldn't make the determination, under every circumstance, that life IS better. Not to mention, I'm of the camp that feels like a lot of people do about where our souls are before we're born.... they're just non-existent. So, I don't feel that not allowing the baby/fetus (however you want to look at it) to live is equivalent to death. Because again, that we be *me* choosing for *them.* Does that make sense?

If a child loses his parents in a tragic accident we don't kill the child becuase he will have to face hardship. I guess I don't want the child killed becuase I would rather the mother suffer for 9 months than to kill an innocent life.

I'm sorry, but this seems like apples to oranges to me. Of course you wouldn't kill a child who's lost parents to something tragic, because s/he is already here, with a mind of their own to use. And how that adds up to me caring whether the mother suffers or not, I'm unclear. I'm contending that it is the *child* that is innocent, with their whole life ahead of them (potentially wrecked before they even emerge from the womb) who must have *that* protected infinitely more than an ideology, or again, someone's concept of what sin *they* (IE: mother, father) will face. I hope that comes out a little less muddled this time. Apologies on making it about as clear as mud.

[Nobody]

A frog has all those things too. That doesn't make it a person.
You didn't answer my question.

[treis]

I do understand where you're coming from. I used to be a very staunch Pro-Life advocate, but the above statement was one of the things that help change my mind. I can't, in good conscience, just hope for the better opportunities that my offspring might face. I couldn't make the determination, under every circumstance, that life IS better.

How do you determine whether or not this fetus will have a happy life or not? There is a chance that a child could die at 10 years old in pain all of its life from some disease. We shouldn't kill fetuses becuase they face a chance that their life will be miserable.


Not to mention, I'm of the camp that feels like a lot of people do about where our souls are before we're born.... they're just non-existent. So, I don't feel that not allowing the baby/fetus (however you want to look at it) to live is equivalent to death. Because again, that we be *me* choosing for *them.* Does that make sense?

I'm of the camp that souls are non-existant so that isn't an issue for me. If you believe that the fetus doesn't have a 'soul' and is a lesser person than the mother then this issue becomes very easy. You kill this fetus becuase it would be better for the mother.


I'm sorry, but this seems like apples to oranges to me. Of course you wouldn't kill a child who's lost parents to something tragic, because s/he is already here, with a mind of their own to use.

O.K. lets apply it this way. Hypothetical Mom is 9 months pregnant when she and the father are killed in a car accident. Should we allow the fetus to die or should we do what we can and save it? I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I don't think we should treat baby any different whether its in the womb or has been born.


And how that adds up to me caring whether the mother suffers or not, I'm unclear. I'm contending that it is the *child* that is innocent, with their whole life ahead of them (potentially wrecked before they even emerge from the womb) who must have *that* protected infinitely more than an ideology, or again, someone's concept of what sin *they* (IE: mother, father) will face. I hope that comes out a little less muddled this time. Apologies on making it about as clear as mud.

You're saying that a child is innocent of the crime and that forcing him to live with this knowledge is punishing him right? If thats the case then my answer is that a life with hardship is a gift compared to no life at all.

[kanicbird]

That said, I disagree strongly with your above statement. Does this mean you're in favour of forceable organ donation and blood donation? I have two kidneys. I am a match for Joe Blow down the road. He will die without my kidney.
Can he legally force me to take it?
Does he have a moral right to take my kidney?

Should laws = morals?

I am not going into the debate that laws=morals (or should), I'm just pointing out an example where it is already. What I am refering to is a law that I know from my nautical days. If your vessel is in distress and you must leave it you are legally allowed to 'tresspass' for this situation but can't cause anymore damage then needed (I could break down a gate to gain access to the property if needed, but couldn't then continue to break down the fence). I feel a fetus has a legal right to use the womb which they have implanted themselves in. That's all I'm saying.

Also for your kidney argument, it is not natural for your kidney to be removed, which childbirth is, and not only natural but needed for humans to continue on this planet, but you knew that already.

Yes. But the victim is the woman, not the fetus. It is a disgusting and horrific violation of that woman both physically and emotionally.

Ok then, what is a fetus to you?

If that's your definition of rape then I've been raped, so I can speak from personal experience that rape's not always that big a deal.

Exactly my point, I have been too and would welcome it again, the word is now meaningless. When you hear it you have to ask for clarification.

It's a life in the way that a parasite is alive, but it is not the same as you or me. IMO, of course, but in this case science and the law are on my side.
look up feticide. Some nice AOL member has a list of some of the feticide laws here:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/feticide.htm
Some laws calling it murder. So the law is not on your side. Science, don't know how you came up with that one :confused:
Science does define the end of life w/ the stop of brain activity, is it wrong to make an assumption here on the begining?

Crazy hypothetical time: it's the year 2798. You come back from Venus infested with a sentient parasite. It's dormant now, but in a year it will explode out of your stomach (which will be very painful, but only carries a slight risk of death, say five percent), and will be able to speak perfect English and play the piano beautifully. You didn't ask to be infested with this parasite--it attached itself to you without your knowledge while you were out collecting rock samples. You don't want it in you. Do you have the right to get rid of it?

Yes you may declare war and kill enemy invaders from space.
:rolleyes:


I like the hypothetical but let;s also assume that the alien Bible says it's a sin for puny humans to abort the alien "baby."

I think you are much more religious then you let on, if only in the anti-religious sense. You see religion in everything, even where there is none, and get upset with what you perceive. It would be an interesting passage, and by it's inclusion one might assume that aborting human babies is OK as they don't have this protection. Such items like alian issues I would leave up to the parents unless they pose a threat.

See, that *is* the point I'm trying to make. Since the baby is blameless, we shouldn't enforce a life on them that isn't as good as we can make it. Hardships aside, you (generally speaking) thrust a child into a world with already several strikes against them, is IMHO, just wrong. Now I realize that the "life isn't fair" argument can be used here, but that's where I think the parents come in to make responsible decisions for the future. Mainly, the potential humans, much less emphasis should be put on their own.

OK, what you are saying is that mercy killings are moral, Under certain circumstances it may be, but a child who can be adopted out doesn't fall into this.

I have also said if the unborn baby has serious problems I would leave it up to the parents to kill it or not.

So I think we are in somewhat of agreement here.

[davenportavenger]

Yes you may declare war and kill enemy invaders from space.
:rolleyes:
Way to miss the point of the hypothetical. The problem is that we see two different things when we think about fetuses. You see a cute little bay-beeee!!! I see a parasite, one which wrecks lives and brings hardship. You don't seem to think I do see that (I've got one cold, cold heart, it's true), but trust me, I do. The point of the hypothetical was to remove the bay-beeee!!! from the equation.

And science is on my side in that it has not proved that non-viable fetuses are sentient. They have potential sentience, but they do not have intelligence equal to that of a fully grown human baby.

How about this hypothetical: We discover a way to make animals intelligent. They only need one shot of a certain chemical to become as intelligent as humans. Is it ethical to kill and eat non-intelligent animals, since they are all potentially sentient, if they were given the right chemical?

[kanicbird]

Way to miss the point of the hypothetical. The problem is that we see two different things when we think about fetuses. You see a cute little bay-beeee!!! I see a parasite, one which wrecks lives and brings hardship. You don't seem to think I do see that (I've got one cold, cold heart, it's true), but trust me, I do. The point of the hypothetical was to remove the bay-beeee!!! from the equation.

No I don't see a cute little bay-beeee!!!, but a human life. And that human life has the same moral rights that every other human life does. The hypothetical removes the human part of that as well, and fails on that.

And science is on my side in that it has not proved that non-viable fetuses are sentient. They have potential sentience, but they do not have intelligence equal to that of a fully grown human baby.

I think it's safe to say that a fetus does not have the same level of intelligence as a baby, but for that mater a baby doesn't have the same intelligence as a adult. Also I assume when you say non-viable, you mean outside the womb if removed today, as opposed to fetus's that can't survive even inside the womb.

Perhaps we should go into what does sentient mean and is it a requirement to being human.

How about this hypothetical: We discover a way to make animals intelligent. They only need one shot of a certain chemical to become as intelligent as humans. Is it ethical to kill and eat non-intelligent animals, since they are all potentially sentient, if they were given the right chemical?

Interesting, I was thinking of the creation of intelligent animals too, but in the context that they started pumping and burning their own oil, and asking you if we should morally stop them from doing so.

At this time I feel that Humans are morally allowed to kill and eat all (non-human) animals, just as tigers are 'morally' allowed to eat humans (though morality w/ animals is vastly different). This extends to the right to kill and eat intelligent animals.

[treis]

How about this hypothetical: We discover a way to make animals intelligent. They only need one shot of a certain chemical to become as intelligent as humans. Is it ethical to kill and eat non-intelligent animals, since they are all potentially sentient, if they were given the right chemical?

This is not an entirely apt analogy it gives a yes/no question for something that in realitiy is a sliding scale. Babies don't suddenly become sentient once they are born. In fact I would argue that they are less sentient than say a dog when they are born. My dog has the ability to communicate with me, he understands what I am saying, is happy to see me, wants to play and wants to investigate different sensations. A baby when its born wants to eat and be warm. It doesn't care who gives them this nor does it want anything more than that.

In your analogy the non-intelligent animals are just like sperm and eggs no one feels that these need to be protected. Once you fuse them or inject the animal with the chemical you have created life that needs to be protected.

[Mtgman]

And the belief that a blastocyte is a person is purely religious.Belief that the arbitrary legal definition of "personhood" is the end-all-be-all of a moral and ethical issue seems every bit as religious. The difference is the object of worship.

Enjoy,
Steven

[zev_steinhardt]

Diogenes,

I've been following your replies on this thread, and if I'm reading them correctly, your position is that a baby, up until birth, has no legal status and therefore is legally considered as a part of the (potential) mother's body to do with as she wishes - just as she can choose to keep or remove a mole or wart, so too she could choose to keep or remove the fetus in her womb.

I understand that point of view, although I find it terribly troubling.

Animals, it would seem, have greater protections under the law (or at least in the good graces of society) than do human fetuses. A person who would willfully kill a puppy they own could find themselves in trouble with the law. Even if they didn't find themselves in legal trouble, they certainly would find themselves ostracized by many in society. Killing a puppy for any but the most necessary of reasons seems to be a Very Bad Thing in our society. Not that I am saying that there aren't acceptable reasons to put down dogs. Dogs that harm other people or animals quite possibly should be put down. Dogs that have only suffering ahead of them may be candidates for euthanasia. But perfectly healthy, normal puppies? Not really. People tend to frown on that sort of thing.

And yet, society has become quite accepting of destroying potential human life simply at the say-so of the "owner" for no apparent good reason. I'm not talking about cases where the life of the mother is at risk. I'm not even talking about cases of rape or incest. I'll even toss aside cases of undue financial hardship. I'm talking about cases where the (potential) mother simply does not want the child for whatever reason. Why is it that we seem to afford greater legal or societal protection to animals than to potential humans?

Zev Steinhardt

[Mehitabel]

Very well said. The utter indifference/inability to the question of what status unborn human life has or should have is why I stopped being pro-choice in my early twenties. I grew more and more uncomfortable the more I researched the issue and the reply from my pro-abortion friends was, "Well, who cares? That's not the point."

Yes. It certainly is.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Because, for one thing a "potential" human isn't a human. "potential" is another word for "imaginary." For another thing, animals don't live inside of human beings.

I am interested in reducing human suffering. I do not believe that a human embryo can suffer (and 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester). I do believe that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy can suffer tremendously. I also believe that unsafe and illegal abortions are worse for society than legal ones.

I understand the moral ambiguity when it comes to older fetuses but third trimester abortions are a tiny fraction of 1% of all abortions and they are performed only for compelling medical reasons (often when the fetus is already dead). There is virtually no third trimester abortion which is purely elective (the pro-life scenarios of full term babies being murdered in utero does not exist in reality).

Having said that, I am on record as saying that if a woman really wants to terminate a late term pregnancy, then every effort should be made to induce a live delivery or remove the fetus intact. The woman has a right to get it out of her body, but it doesn't necessarily have to be killed to get it out of her body.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Above addressed to Zev.

[treis]

Diogenes-

Either that fetus is a parasite in a woman's body and it is morally ok for her to remove it at any time or its a human life and it is not ok for her to kill it. Just becuase it starts to look more like a human or can now breath on its own doesn't change anything.

[zev_steinhardt]

Because, for one thing a "potential" human isn't a human. "potential" is another word for "imaginary." For another thing, animals don't live inside of human beings.

I am interested in reducing human suffering. I do not believe that a human embryo can suffer (and 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester). I do believe that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy can suffer tremendously. I also believe that unsafe and illegal abortions are worse for society than legal ones.


I understand what you are saying. I understand that you are interested in reducing human suffering and that a fetus doesn't have the label of "human" attached to it. But it doesn't really address the questions that I asked.

The question that I asked was this: Why do we, as a society, seem to value puppies more than fetuses, to the extent that we get outraged at (and possibly, depending on the circumstances and local laws, start legal action against) those who kill puppies; but become blase about killing fetuses. Even if we grant your statement that a fetus is not human (a statement that, to some extent, I agree with - a fetus isn't a fully-qualified human being until birth) should it not have some higher value than a puppy? But yet, that's not how our society sees things, and that is what has me very troubled.

Zev Steinhardt

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I understand what you are saying. I understand that you are interested in reducing human suffering and that a fetus doesn't have the label of "human" attached to it. But it doesn't really address the questions that I asked.

The question that I asked was this: Why do we, as a society, seem to value puppies more than fetuses, to the extent that we get outraged at (and possibly, depending on the circumstances and local laws, start legal action against) those who kill puppies; but become blase about killing fetuses. Even if we grant your statement that a fetus is not human (a statement that, to some extent, I agree with - a fetus isn't a fully-qualified human being until birth) should it not have some higher value than a puppy? But yet, that's not how our society sees things, and that is what has me very troubled.

Zev Steinhardt
I think a puppy can suffer and a fetus can't. It's just that simple for me (and bear in mind that I attach no spiritual significance to a fetus. I see it simply as tissue. I know that others view it differently but I am not advocating that anyone should have to get an abortion).

I'll also say again that a puppy doesn't live inside a human being. The question for me is not why a puppy is valued more than a fetus, but why should a fetus be valued more than a woman.

[The Asbestos Mango]

For those who say that a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will...

I'm going to lay aside the issue of forcible rape, since pregnancies resulting from it are fairly uncommon.

Pregnancy results from a consensual act. The woman knew she could become pregnant when she engaged in sexual relations. She also knew that there was a possibility, however slight, that whatever birth control method could fail. Therefore, by consenting to sexual intercourse, she consented to allow herself to become pregnant.

A woman who decides she wants to have an abortion is essentially changing her mind after the fact, and deciding that she doesn't want to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions.

I find this reprehensible.

If she truly does not want to have a child then she has the ability to make the choice not to engage in activities that may result in pregnancy. If she is unwilling to refrain from those activities, then she can make the choice to double up on birth control (pill plus condom, sponge, spermicidal suppository, whatever) to reduce the possibility of pregnancy to practically nil.

[zev_steinhardt]

I think a puppy can suffer and a fetus can't. It's just that simple for me (and bear in mind that I attach no spiritual significance to a fetus. I see it simply as tissue. I know that others view it differently but I am not advocating that anyone should have to get an abortion).


But you don't. You said so earlier. You said before that if at all possible (in a late term abortion) a live delivery (or extraction) should be attempted. In stating so, you are granting that the fetus is not mere tissue but has a potential for life that should, if at all possible, be preserved.

You don't see (it seems to me) a fetus as simply tissue, but that which does have potential for independent life. And while I grant you that this may not apply to early-term fetuses, at some point during the pregnancy, you grant some form of "moral" value to it by stating that it should be preserved if possible.


I'll also say again that a puppy doesn't live inside a human being. The question for me is not why a puppy is valued more than a fetus, but why should a fetus be valued more than a woman.

We (or at least I) don't. If it comes down to a choice of "one dies or the other" then the fetus loses - hands down, no argument. But we're not weighing equivilencies here: We're not judging the values of the fetus' life vs. the mother's life - we're judging the fetus' life vs. the mother's happiness, or wealth, or whatever other reason she chooses to have an abortion.

My anology dealt with equivilencies: the puppy's life vs. the fetus' life. Under those circumstances (with regard to mother vs. fetus) the mother wins. But when we're not dealing with the mother's life, then we're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.

Zev Steinhardt

[Shodan]

I understand the moral ambiguity when it comes to older fetuses but third trimester abortions are a tiny fraction of 1% of all abortions and they are performed only for compelling medical reasons (often when the fetus is already dead). There is virtually no third trimester abortion which is purely elective (the pro-life scenarios of full term babies being murdered in utero does not exist in reality).Cite, please.

Regards,
Shodan

[faithfool]

treis, thanks for presenting your case in a well thought-out and polite answer. Unfortunately, I think we're talking past each other about the same thing, yet coming to different conclusions.... we both agree that the baby is THE most important aspect of any pregnancy. However, I think that entitles the baby to unending rights after s/he is born, which trumps any thing else (including our own personal desires, morals, etc.) and should be the only thing considered. Because that's too large of a responsibility to take lightly and assume that we're hoping for the best. So, I'd ditch my beliefs for realities for their LIFE. And no, I'm not talking about your average ordinary daily struggles and hardships. Into every life a little rain must fall, right? No, I'm addressing immutable problems like I've mentioned before; mental illness, abject poverty to the point of including immorality, being addicted or predisposed to certain illegal substances from the moment they see the light of day, ad infinitum. But we already knew my stance on that.

You too believe that the baby is pinnacle of importance, over ruling any feelings/desires of the mother and father, and the rest of society too, I suppose. We agree. Apparently, there is a disagreement though on *how* we interpret this and therefore carry it out to its conclusion. I understand where you're coming from, I feel that's a pretty normal and rather common idea, not just among Pro-Lifers, but also some Pro-Choicers as well. Sadly for me and my inability to explain myself very clearly, I think my view on the subject is pretty much different even from my 'own' camp. Leaving me swinging in the wind or going in circles, and undoubtedly not too very articulate with how to express it. So, perhaps I really should bow out of the debate. Let folks who have a more clear-cut opinion take the podium and explain the rationale. Besides, I don't think anyone would miss me. :) You're really the only member (besides that fellow who's now banned) paying me any attention anyway. I definitely need to work on my GD skills. Again, thank you.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But you don't. You said so earlier. You said before that if at all possible (in a late term abortion) a live delivery (or extraction) should be attempted. In stating so, you are granting that the fetus is not mere tissue but has a potential for life that should, if at all possible, be preserved.

You don't see (it seems to me) a fetus as simply tissue, but that which does have potential for independent life. And while I grant you that this may not apply to early-term fetuses, at some point during the pregnancy, you grant some form of "moral" value to it by stating that it should be preserved if possible.
I am recognizing the reality of moral ambiguity in fetal development. For the vast majority of abortions, there is no ambiguity at all for me. It's non-sentient tissue and that's it. I also recognize that babies born prematurely are still babies, if a late term pregnancy can be terminated through premature induction rather than abortion, I'm all for it.

One of the problems with this whole argument is that both sides tend to want to sweep all fetal development into one category or the other. They argue about whether it is a baby or it isn't when the reality is that "it" is not a static entity that can be consistently classified. In the early stages calling it a baby seems ludicrous. In the very late stages saying it's not a baby seems ludicrous. At some point it becomes a baby but that point is so gradual and ambiguous that any legal line which is drawn has to be arbitrary. I want to be realistic about it. I recognize that a five week embryo and a 30 week fetus are not the same thing. A non-arbitrary line cannot be drawn so I would say that if it can live outside the mother than try to keep it alive. Once it's out of the woman's body, and it is no longer intruding on her rights, then it will acquire its own rights.
We (or at least I) don't. If it comes down to a choice of "one dies or the other" then the fetus loses - hands down, no argument. But we're not weighing equivilencies here: We're not judging the values of the fetus' life vs. the mother's life - we're judging the fetus' life vs. the mother's happiness, or wealth, or whatever other reason she chooses to have an abortion.

My anology dealt with equivilencies: the puppy's life vs. the fetus' life. Under those circumstances (with regard to mother vs. fetus) the mother wins. But when we're not dealing with the mother's life, then we're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.

Zev Steinhardt
I don't think that a blob of non-sentient tissue has any rights which need to be considered whatsoever. IMO, The right of a woman to eat pie is more important than the rights of a blob of non-sentient tissue.

And a woman can suffer from an unwanted pregnancies in many ways that don't entail dying. If she can reduce or eliminate her suffering by terminating a pregnancy then I believe her right to do that supercedes the rights of a blob of tissue that can't suffer.

I also want to emphasize that my feelings in this regard are directed at first trimester abortions. The earlier the better.

[zev_steinhardt]

I don't think that a blob of non-sentient tissue has any rights which need to be considered whatsoever. IMO, The right of a woman to eat pie is more important than the rights of a blob of non-sentient tissue.


We're not talking about a tumor or a cyst, or even a pimple, which, if left alone, will never develop into a fully functioning, sentient human being. We're talking about a "lump of tissue" that, if left alone, very probably *will* become a fully functioning sentient human being. If you think, however, that the two are equivilant; that a five-week fetus is no different than a cyst or a wart, then we simply have to sadly disagree on that point.

Zev Steinhardt

[treis]

treis, thanks for presenting your case in a well thought-out and polite answer. Unfortunately, I think we're talking past each other about the same thing, yet coming to different conclusions.... we both agree that the baby is THE most important aspect of any pregnancy. However, I think that entitles the baby to unending rights after s/he is born, which trumps any thing else (including our own personal desires, morals, etc.) and should be the only thing considered. Because that's too large of a responsibility to take lightly and assume that we're hoping for the best. So, I'd ditch my beliefs for realities for their LIFE. And no, I'm not talking about your average ordinary daily struggles and hardships. Into every life a little rain must fall, right? No, I'm addressing immutable problems like I've mentioned before; mental illness, abject poverty to the point of including immorality, being addicted or predisposed to certain illegal substances from the moment they see the light of day, ad infinitum. But we already knew my stance on that.

My main problem is that I don't feel that a child concieved by rape is doomed to mental illness and all of the other problems you mention.


You too believe that the baby is pinnacle of importance, over ruling any feelings/desires of the mother and father, and the rest of society too, I suppose. We agree. Apparently, there is a disagreement though on *how* we interpret this and therefore carry it out to its conclusion. I understand where you're coming from, I feel that's a pretty normal and rather common idea, not just among Pro-Lifers, but also some Pro-Choicers as well. Sadly for me and my inability to explain myself very clearly, I think my view on the subject is pretty much different even from my 'own' camp. Leaving me swinging in the wind or going in circles, and undoubtedly not too very articulate with how to express it. So, perhaps I really should bow out of the debate. Let folks who have a more clear-cut opinion take the podium and explain the rationale. Besides, I don't think anyone would miss me. :) You're really the only member (besides that fellow who's now banned) paying me any attention anyway. I definitely need to work on my GD skills. Again, thank you.

I think you are stating your position fine we just look at this situation from two different perspectives. I am an optimist I think that the child go could on to have a normal happy life. You are more pessimistic than I am and think that the child is doomed to an unhappy life. What we need is some sort of hard data or a study. If a hypothetical study shows that children concieved by rape that are adopted and later find out how they were concieved have no increased risk to any problems later in life how would you feel?

I don't think that a blob of non-sentient tissue has any rights which need to be considered whatsoever

But we do give rights to babies. Babies are certainly less sentient than an intelligent dog but they get these rights becuase they are a human life.

[faithfool]

Ah treis, ya keep drawing me back in. ;) I appreciate you cutting me some slack on my presentation, but I'm still pretty sure that I'm botching it up. But anyway, I'll try again. Bear with me.

My main problem is that I don't feel that a child concieved by rape is doomed to mental illness and all of the other problems you mention.

See, it's that part where our misunderstanding comes in. I don't think that they are "doomed" to a life of mental illness or even destined to encounter any problems at all. What I believe though, is that a known problem (outside of rape -- how'd we get stuck on that particular scenario?) outweighs a possible happy life. IE: I have a mental illness and it's been widely documented within my mother's side of the family. I don't really know about my father's because he's played absolutely no part in my life whatsoever, except to sign over the right to adoption to my step-dad when I was 12. So, under those deep-seated and long-ruing conditions, I'm pretty sure I inherited a lot of this. Extrapolate that out, and I think it would be irresponsible to pass that on to any potential children. For I know NOW that it is there. I do NOT know that they might have a happy life. The former is fact, the latter is guessing. I, IMHO, have to go with what is already established instead of gambling with what I'm hoping for. The reality versus potential is just not enough for me. Concrete evidence, now rather than later, wins the day in my heart.

I think you are stating your position fine we just look at this situation from two different perspectives. I am an optimist I think that the child go could on to have a normal happy life. You are more pessimistic than I am and think that the child is doomed to an unhappy life. What we need is some sort of hard data or a study. If a hypothetical study shows that children concieved by rape that are adopted and later find out how they were concieved have no increased risk to any problems later in life how would you feel?

I agree that some study or hard data would be awesome. And again, leaving the rape hypothetical out of it, if someone could prove to me that there'd be absolutely no way, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that something like mental illness couldn't be passed on to future generations, then I definitely would feel differently. However, until that time, I gotta go with my own experience and that of too many others that I know.

Hope all that makes more sense this time. I could be just banging my head against a wall for all my lack of ability to explain myself in a cognitive (but not too verbose) way.

:(

::: sigh :::

Practice, practice, practice, right?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

We're not talking about a tumor or a cyst, or even a pimple, which, if left alone, will never develop into a fully functioning, sentient human being. We're talking about a "lump of tissue" that, if left alone, very probably *will* become a fully functioning sentient human being. If you think, however, that the two are equivilant; that a five-week fetus is no different than a cyst or a wart, then we simply have to sadly disagree on that point.

Zev Steinhardt
That's a very crucial IF. If that tissue is NOT left alone, then it becomes nothing. I don't believe you can ascribe hypothetical "potential" characterics to something that exists NOW. An acorn is potentially an oak tree but you can't make a desk out of an acorn.

[treis]

See, it's that part where our misunderstanding comes in. I don't think that they are "doomed" to a life of mental illness or even destined to encounter any problems at all. What I believe though, is that a known problem (outside of rape -- how'd we get stuck on that particular scenario?) outweighs a possible happy life. IE: I have a mental illness and it's been widely documented within my mother's side of the family.

I am not quite sure I am following you here. Are you saying that becuase the father is a rapist the child has a higher chance of becoming a rapist?


I don't really know about my father's because he's played absolutely no part in my life whatsoever, except to sign over the right to adoption to my step-dad when I was 12. So, under those deep-seated and long-ruing conditions, I'm pretty sure I inherited a lot of this. Extrapolate that out, and I think it would be irresponsible to pass that on to any potential children. For I know NOW that it is there. I do NOT know that they might have a happy life. The former is fact, the latter is guessing. I, IMHO, have to go with what is already established instead of gambling with what I'm hoping for. The reality versus potential is just not enough for me. Concrete evidence, now rather than later, wins the day in my heart.

Concrete evidence of what?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But we do give rights to babies. Babies are certainly less sentient than an intelligent dog but they get these rights becuase they are a human life.And a fetus is not.

[faithfool]

I am not quite sure I am following you here. Are you saying that becuase the father is a rapist the child has a higher chance of becoming a rapist?

No, no, no. Like I said previously, can we please leave the rap equation out of it? I only responded to one (or two) specific posts about that and didn't bring it up in the first place. And if it was a consideration, and the child once reaching the age of awareness (where ever that may be for each individual), they may indeed question if that is a possibility. Children of suicides, alcoholics, whatever, a lot of times wonder that it may be their lot in life to, so I'm assuming that it wouldn't be very far removed from that sort of idea.

But again, foregoing the rape question, what I'm talking about is something exactly like mental illness. I really don't know any better way of putting emphasis on my meaning. I'm apparently a real putz when it comes to this communicating thing. Anyway, I'm talking about things that the parent will indeed, without a doubt, pass on to their child. Do you follow me here?

Concrete evidence of what?

See above. Mental illness, seriously debilitating birth defects with absolutely no hopes of normalcy or functioning autonomously, a long history of addictions (or being born with one) that seemingly can't be overcome. That's the best I can offer in way of examples. I hope it helps.

Otherwise, can anyone else (Dio perhaps) illustrate my position better than I'm doing? Because I'm failing miserably and surely someone much smarter than I gets what I'm at least alluding to. Any takers? Please help. I'm drowning here. I'd much, much, much appreciate the assistance and promise I'll abandon GD forever if I'm too incomprehensible to post.

[treis]

And a fetus is not.

a fetus is not human? is not alive?

[treis]

No, no, no. Like I said previously, can we please leave the rap equation out of it? I only responded to one (or two) specific posts about that and didn't bring it up in the first place. And if it was a consideration, and the child once reaching the age of awareness (where ever that may be for each individual), they may indeed question if that is a possibility. Children of suicides, alcoholics, whatever, a lot of times wonder that it may be their lot in life to, so I'm assuming that it wouldn't be very far removed from that sort of idea.

But again, foregoing the rape question, what I'm talking about is something exactly like mental illness. I really don't know any better way of putting emphasis on my meaning. I'm apparently a real putz when it comes to this communicating thing. Anyway, I'm talking about things that the parent will indeed, without a doubt, pass on to their child. Do you follow me here?



See above. Mental illness, seriously debilitating birth defects with absolutely no hopes of normalcy or functioning autonomously, a long history of addictions (or being born with one) that seemingly can't be overcome. That's the best I can offer in way of examples. I hope it helps.

Otherwise, can anyone else (Dio perhaps) illustrate my position better than I'm doing? Because I'm failing miserably and surely someone much smarter than I gets what I'm at least alluding to. Any takers? Please help. I'm drowning here. I'd much, much, much appreciate the assistance and promise I'll abandon GD forever if I'm too incomprehensible to post.

Ooooooooooh.

You're asking if its ok to abort a fetus becuase you have somesort of genetic condition that you know will make the childs life miserable?

[scule]

I know I’m coming late to this thread but a few thoughts:

I think I must side with Diogenes on this one, in though perhaps not necessarily from the same perspective (although personally, I am in complete agreement with you). Quite honestly, abortions have been around for ages. Women have always throughout history sought out ways to end an unwanted pregnancy. They won’t go away if we make them illegal, but they will get more dangerous. That was the case before and will likely be the case in the future if the laws are changed. That doesn’t help anyone.

Beyond that, what possibly benefit could come from making them illegal? A bunch of unwanted children? Fine, they could be adopted, which would be nice, but what about the mothers? What about their suffering? What about their emotional pain from carrying a child and giving it up? And further, and to me almost more importantly, what sort of punishment is of any use to mete out against a woman who has an abortion? Jail time? What good would that do to anyone? That will not stop abortions, and the woman is no actual danger to society, like a murderer or pedophile. So how does making them illegal help anyone? It really doesn’t. So whether you are against abortions or not, you really have a choice as to whether you make them safe and legal, if not particularly a happy thing, or dangerous and illegal, and an even more miserable experience. Personally, I’d be happy if there were no abortions, and people only had sex with someone they were sure they wanted to be with for a long time, but that’s just not the real world, so you really have to ask yourself what eliminates the most suffering, and go from there.

Also, Dio, Shodan asked you for a cite, and while I’m in your camp, I think a factual claim like you made earlier should be backed up or withdrawn.

And then the last also, faithfool, I think you really are selling yourself short. It sounds to me like you have some serious psychological issues that give you reason to doubt your value as a human being. You may want to seek some help, but also cut yourself some slack. I am a much smarter person than I may read as on this board, and I know it (forgive the boast), but I’m not a very good writer and do better when I speak than post here. You come across clearly and effectively, so don’t think you aren’t being effective here. Keep posting and learn to love yourself, because I guarantee you that you’ve had a positive effect on someone in your life.

[faithfool]

Woohoo! YES!! But not just miserable, an obstacle that one is able to recover from to the point of a regular life. Completely unattainable by any standards and downright immobilizing (at least, in the case of say, insanity, mentally) to meet even one's very basic needs. So, I would consider a termination before a destroyed-before-it-even-happens existence. That would be, IMHO, the ultimate act of love. Again, foregoing your own moral stance and where it might lead you (unabashed daily regret, hell), desire to have a baby, etc. Concern for them and their future is the most important, nay ONLY aspect that should be under consideration.

But I gotta say woohoo again! I finally did it with the explaining thing. I think I'll go write this down in my journal now. God bless you treis for working so diligently with me. Your patience has paid off, at least to my flagging self-esteem. Gracious.

[faithfool]

And then the last also, faithfool, I think you really are selling yourself short. It sounds to me like you have some serious psychological issues that give you reason to doubt your value as a human being. You may want to seek some help, but also cut yourself some slack. I am a much smarter person than I may read as on this board, and I know it (forgive the boast), but I’m not a very good writer and do better when I speak than post here. You come across clearly and effectively, so don’t think you aren’t being effective here. Keep posting and learn to love yourself, because I guarantee you that you’ve had a positive effect on someone in your life.

Thank you scule, that was very kind. And I do have lots and lots of problems that I've been dealing with for what seems forever. However, I am in therapy and for the first time in *my* life, my medications seem to be working. Not that it's necessarily evident here, but you did hit the nail on the head. I'm not very good with giving myself any slack nor is there any love directed to me by me. Ditto goes for the positive effect on anyone or short selling. That's always been my profession. :smack: But that said, I'm dedicated to keep trying if for no other reason than I might help someone else (yes, yes, I know). So again, I appreciate the support. Especially for an agoraphobic to hear. We don't run into much outside assistance in our living rooms. ;)

{{{Hugs}}} to you for that random act. I'm sure somewhere, there's an angel with new wings. :)

Now, enough about me. I apologize for the hijack. I definitely don't want to derail the original discussion. Therefore, back to our hypothetical offspring, before and after.

[treis]

Beyond that, what possibly benefit could come from making them illegal? A bunch of unwanted children?

In my opinion a life as an unwanted child is better than no life at all.


Fine, they could be adopted, which would be nice, but what about the mothers? What about their suffering? What about their emotional pain from carrying a child and giving it up?

0 sympathy. They made the decision to have sex they live with the consequences.


And further, and to me almost more importantly, what sort of punishment is of any use to mete out against a woman who has an abortion? Jail time?

I am going to start playing Devil's advocate as I think abortion should be legal.

I think it would depend wildly on the situation of the Mother and Father. If they can support a kid but don't want one becuase it would be inconvient I would think that she would get some jail time. If she is something along the lines of a 17 year old who can't possible support a child I think she would get off very lightly if not completely.



What good would that do to anyone? That will not stop abortions, and the woman is no actual danger to society, like a murderer or pedophile.

Set a punishment high enough that will stop women from having them.



So how does making them illegal help anyone? It really doesn’t. So whether you are against abortions or not, you really have a choice as to whether you make them safe and legal, if not particularly a happy thing, or dangerous and illegal, and an even more miserable experience.

How about not punishing doctors that give them? If we catch a mother getting an abortion then punish her.


Personally, I’d be happy if there were no abortions, and people only had sex with someone they were sure they wanted to be with for a long time, but that’s just not the real world, so you really have to ask yourself what eliminates the most suffering, and go from there.

I disagree. The best solution is to make the people who are responsible suffer and protect the rights of the innocent.


And then the last also, faithfool, I think you really are selling yourself short. It sounds to me like you have some serious psychological issues that give you reason to doubt your value as a human being. You may want to seek some help, but also cut yourself some slack. I am a much smarter person than I may read as on this board, and I know it (forgive the boast), but I’m not a very good writer and do better when I speak than post here. You come across clearly and effectively, so don’t think you aren’t being effective here. Keep posting and learn to love yourself, because I guarantee you that you’ve had a positive effect on someone in your life.

I agree.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

a fetus is not human? is not alive?
Not a human.

[treis]

*scratches head*

What definition do you use for human?

[zev_steinhardt]

That's a very crucial IF. If that tissue is NOT left alone, then it becomes nothing. I don't believe you can ascribe hypothetical "potential" characterics to something that exists NOW. An acorn is potentially an oak tree but you can't make a desk out of an acorn.

Agreed that it's a cruicial IF. But considering the value we place on human life and the probability that this fetus will become a human, it deserves far more appreciation than an acorn.

Zev Steinhardt

[faithfool]

In my opinion a life as an unwanted child is better than no life at all.



0 sympathy. They made the decision to have sex they live with the consequences.

IMHO, I don't think any child should be unwanted and definitely not viewed as a "consequence." And although I realize that's not exactly what you're saying, I do believe that a portion of the world has felt that way once learning of the whys behind their mother's decision.

I am going to start playing Devil's advocate as I think abortion should be legal.

I think it would depend wildly on the situation of the Mother and Father. If they can support a kid but don't want one becuase it would be inconvient I would think that she would get some jail time. If she is something along the lines of a 17 year old who can't possible support a child I think she would get off very lightly if not completely.

Bolding mine.


Why do we, as a culture, have a need to seek retribution or punishment? If what I've read is true about repeat offenders, consequences don't exactly prevent recidivism.
People always proclaim there are some who choose this out of it being "inconvenient." Therefore, I've never done this before, but.... cite please. I think this is another area where supposition shouldn't deter the options. I mean, it's purely anecdotal, but the limited amount of women I've known personally, have never absconded with birth because of this.


[QUOTE]Set a punishment high enough that will stop women from having them.

Do you really believe that this would prevent abortions? I feel it is similar to the death penalty (which I'm not advocating we discuss here -- just as an example) in that even though the responsibility for murder is steep, I doubt very seriously that in the heat of the moment (or under too much duress), that it actually stops anyone who is intent on following through from doing so. Just my thoughts.

How about not punishing doctors that give them? If we catch a mother getting an abortion then punish her.

If she's not apt to ever repeat her "transgression," would punishment on top of whatever else she's going through (IE: what got her to this place to begin with that makes it feel like the only options, possible horrific remorse afterwards, some societal outcasting, personal stigmatization, the fear of eternal damnation) make it inevitable for her not to pick the same thing again, however unlikely, if the situations outlined above happen again? I can't imagine that being the case.

I disagree. The best solution is to make the people who are responsible suffer and protect the rights of the innocent.

See, to my way of thinking, it IS the innocent who are being held responsible for the so-called sins of the parents. I wouldn't have wanted to be seen as a "punishment" for my mother and father's mistakes. I'd need to feel loved and wanted. Me being the payback, if you will, is a reprehensible idea. At least to me.

After much encouragement (thanks to you too treis!), I'll be feeling a bit more confident with my hoping for the best in coherency here. I'll start crossing my keyboard fingers now.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

88 percent of all legal abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and 56 percent take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2002). (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/HealthBenef.html)

Third-trimester abortions are extremely uncommon; fewer than 600 are performed per year. This irrefutable fact is documented by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the institution acknowledged by the Centers for Disease Control as having the most complete information on abortion practice. When Richard Cohen wrote in a June 1995 op-ed column that “just four one-hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks,” and that “most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found to be severely damanged or because the life of the mother is clearly in danger” (http://www.drhern.com/abnumbers.htm)
I know the second link is an opinion piece but the AGI numbers quoted are accurate, I just can't find a direct link to the AGI results (they are frequently quoted in these debates).

[kanicbird]

*scratches head*

What definition do you use for human?


Yes, this is what I would like to know too, and when does it start?

[scule]

faithfool, you pretty much nailed what my point would have been. There really isn’t much truth to the deterrence of crime arising from punitive actions, at least in cases where emotions are involved. Really, murders still do happen and will continue, as will assaults, rapes, and domestic disputes. I am sure that some people are deterred from these actions by potential punishments, my point is rather that the punishments do not effectively deter the action overall. While we certainly can’t just let them happen, it seems to me that there needs to be a balance between protecting the public at large and helping the individual(s) involved. With a murder, someone has taken an existing person’s life, so that person must be punished, or we tacitly condone and/or accept their behaviour. Rape, assault, and so on are similar, in that someone’s rights are violated. The key difference with abortion is the issue of foetal rights. Unless you regard the foetus as a person, it really has none. This is also a unique situation in that the potential victim exists solely in a parasitic format. The mother can continue without the foetus, but for most of its development, the foetus needs the mother. This places this sort of issue outside the realm of murders and so on, because of the fundamental connection between the parties in question. The mother has complete and total control over the foetus only because it can’t exist without her, but she can exist without it. And as it stands, there really isn’t a solid case for calling a foetus a human being until it is at least viable outside the body.

That rambling aside, my point is thus that making punishments harsher will not deter the act. The emotion involved is what really determines the outcome, and no penalty will truly outweigh that consideration. Murders aren’t deterred by the death penalty; abortions won’t be deterred by punishment. And further, if you were to outlaw abortions and punish the woman for having one, you would have to punish the doctor or whoever performed it, as being accessory to the crime. You could not pick one side to punish over the other.

I tend to regard this issue in a similar manner to drug use. The reasons why one gets addicted to drugs are legion, and largely unimportant. The problem has also been around forever, and isn’t going to go away. What is important is whether or not that person needs help. We can, as a society, turn our backs on them and take the ignorant “They’re fault, they’re problem” attitude, or we can accept that people make mistakes, aren’t perfect, and be willing to forgive and help them. That’s what needle exchanges are all about. The idea is that even if someone is messed up, at least you can do something to help them. It may not be a cure to their addiction, but it can prevent them from dying and spreading diseases to others. Same with abortion, it may not be a great thing to have going on, but it can really help some people, and in the end the existing person is more important than the potential one.

[Lord Ashtar]

Asking for a definition of life and when the fetus becomes "alive" is a waste of time, since nobody knows.

[redtail23]

The question that I asked was this: Why do we, as a society, seem to value puppies more than fetuses, to the extent that we get outraged at (and possibly, depending on the circumstances and local laws, start legal action against) those who kill puppies; but become blase about killing fetuses. Even if we grant your statement that a fetus is not human (a statement that, to some extent, I agree with - a fetus isn't a fully-qualified human being until birth) should it not have some higher value than a puppy? But yet, that's not how our society sees things, and that is what has me very troubled.
Sorry, but that's just not true.

Yes, people often become outraged over a particular individual killing a puppy, but that's generally when the killing is perceived as "cruelty" or "torture" (whether or not that perception is realistic or justifiable in any given situation is a different discussion). We certainly do NOT become outraged about the killing of innocent puppies as long as it's done "professionally" and "humanely". We kill millions of dogs and cats each year in this country. The numbers I found ranged from 3-12 million, with 4-6 million as the most common figure quoted, from a pet population of around 130 million. (Apparently there's no concerted effort to track the totals so a solid number is unavailable.)

Similarly, people often become outraged at various instances of individuals harming/killing fetuses (whether the perpetrator is the mother or a different person), even though the same people may be perfectly willing to consider abortion acceptable when performed by a physician. By contrast, the numbers I've googled indicate approximately 1.4 million abortions per year from a population of around 282 million.

Evidently, our society is about 10 times more willing to kill pets than children. And willing to put much more effort into preventing pregnancy in themselves, even though it's much easier to prevent pregnancy in pets.

As it should be, I'm sure you'll agree.

[kanicbird]

Asking for a definition of life and when the fetus becomes "alive" is a waste of time, since nobody knows.

I disagree, it gives you insite into their way of thinking, and clarifies where they stand. Sometimes the logic as to how they arived at that conclusion (if they have a answer) is helpful in understanding where the other guy is comming from. Also as one pushes that line further out it gets fuzzier, which is harder to defend.

I would really like to hear the logic DtC used to come up with the "there is no baby" line he keeps using. And you can only hurt the mother.

Re: the puppy/fetus argument, if we are just talking about pain, then one can blow the brains out of the puppy w/ a high powered rifle, and not only will the puppy not feal it, it won't even hear the shot.

So it's not about pain.

[faithfool]

::: does Snoopy Happy Dance that I made sense and was understood :::

Yippee! (Is that ok in GD?) Thank you, thank you, thank you!! :)



< snippage >

That rambling aside, my point is thus that making punishments harsher will not deter the act. The emotion involved is what really determines the outcome, and no penalty will truly outweigh that consideration. Murders aren’t deterred by the death penalty; abortions won’t be deterred by punishment. And further, if you were to outlaw abortions and punish the woman for having one, you would have to punish the doctor or whoever performed it, as being accessory to the crime. You could not pick one side to punish over the other.

< snip again >



This makes an excellent point. It is too simplistic to lay the final call on who is disciplined by assuming the mother should bear the full brunt. Because there are plenty of instances where a physically abusive SO may demand it. Or parents who hold control of the very essence of said mothers life, do the same thing. Or whatever the specific, realistic circumstances may be.

In these cases, under the scenarios presented, all those folks would shoulder equal responsibility and thus should be punished just as accordingly. Now, who has the possibility of more recidivism with this "crime"? Women who'd have to go through the supposed anguish and possible moral dilemma of abortion? Or men that could simply be a sperm donor, then vanish and move on to their next conquest? It could be that those males would suffer infinitely more (and, again, with these rules applied, should justifiably so) in quantity than any females ever could. Is that what would be warranted? Or not part of the equation because.... it might be too hard to prove, they truly may not be around to except their fate or refuse to be held responsible in the situation regarding those that are custodial of say, a minor? I just see this as a slippery slope that wouldn't support the side of Pro-Lifers, IMHO. Too much fallout might result in a huge amount of one side of the population becoming incarcerated.

Oh, and what about retroactively? Do we owe anything to the innocent fetuses (sp?) then? They were equally not to blame. Just curious.

And upon preview, I see that redtail23 brings up an interesting observation. I'm not sure if it's really a corollary to this, but it does give more food for thought.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I disagree, it gives you insite into their way of thinking, and clarifies where they stand. Sometimes the logic as to how they arived at that conclusion (if they have a answer) is helpful in understanding where the other guy is comming from. Also as one pushes that line further out it gets fuzzier, which is harder to defend.

I would really like to hear the logic DtC used to come up with the "there is no baby" line he keeps using. And you can only hurt the mother.

Re: the puppy/fetus argument, if we are just talking about pain, then one can blow the brains out of the puppy w/ a high powered rifle, and not only will the puppy not feal it, it won't even hear the shot.

So it's not about pain.
A blob of unsentient tissue is not a person. I also think the definition of a "person" necessarily (but not exclusively) has to include a condition of not living in somebody's stomach.

It's spelled insight, by the way.

[redtail23]

The womb is a nessesary enviroment for he survival of the fetus, and like laws that alow me to tresspass on your private property for emergency survival situations, a fetus has that moral right to the womb it has implanted itself into.
Your argument is similar to saying that if someone sets up a tent on your lawn because they're homeless, they have the right because they've implanted themselves into it.
So we shouldn't prosecute people who rob pharmacies to obtain life-sustaining medicines?
So we should fund more public hospitals and public health programs, so that people who need surgeries for survival but can't afford them can get them?
So if a starving homeless person showed up on your doorstep, you would take them in and feed them?
For these 2 [pharmacy robbing, public hospitals] we do already, no hospital can deny emergency medical care in the US, no need to rob anyone.
Using the above they [starving homeless person] have the ability to go to the nearest hospital to get live saving, well in this case food.
Does this mean you're in favour of forceable organ donation and blood donation? I have two kidneys. I am a match for Joe Blow down the road. He will die without my kidney.
Can he legally force me to take it?
Does he have a moral right to take my kidney?
I am not going into the debate that laws=morals (or should), I'm just pointing out an example where it is already. What I am refering to is a law that I know from my nautical days. If your vessel is in distress and you must leave it you are legally allowed to 'tresspass' for this situation but can't cause anymore damage then needed (I could break down a gate to gain access to the property if needed, but couldn't then continue to break down the fence). I feel a fetus has a legal right to use the womb which they have implanted themselves in. That's all I'm saying.
Also for your kidney argument, it is not natural for your kidney to be removed, which childbirth is, and not only natural but needed for humans to continue on this planet, but you knew that already.
kanicbird, you're being very inconsistent here. You keep claiming that a fetus has a moral and legal right to lifesupport inside a woman's body, just because it's there and must have such to survive. However, in every other instance mentioned, you say that either "someone else" is responsible, or the person has no such right.

The U.S. does not supply medication nor medical services to all who need them - that's exactly what the entire health care debate is about. Yes, if you have an immediate, life-threatening emergency, theoretically you can't be denied care (although it does happen, more frequently than you'd probably like to know about). However, people here can and do die of chronic, treatable conditions because they can't afford medical care. And hospitals generally don't feed homeless people just because they're starving.

But that's beside the point--you're really just trying to sidestep the whole exchange. A pregnant woman can't pawn off a pregnancy onto someone else (at least not with today's technology). So the question is, does a homeless person have the right to YOUR lawn, simply because they need a place to live? Does a starving person have the right to break into YOUR home and take food? Does a sick person have a right to steal YOUR medication, if they need it to live? Can YOU morally be forced to save another's life, even though it will require invasion and use of YOUR body? If your answer to these questions is "no", but you maintain your position regarding the rights of a fetus, then you're saying that a fetus should have "special rights" not available to any other person. Please explain why you feel that such a double-standard should be used.

P.S. Your "natural" argument is asinine - almost all medical treatment in use today would not qualify as "natural", but that doesn't stop anyone. Abortion can be perfectly "natural" - there are numerous natural (although less effective) abortifacients that have been used for thousands of years. Does that mean you think it's OK for a woman to abort, as long as she only uses "natural" methods?

[Lord Ashtar]

I disagree, it gives you insite into their way of thinking, and clarifies where they stand. Sometimes the logic as to how they arived at that conclusion (if they have a answer) is helpful in understanding where the other guy is comming from. Also as one pushes that line further out it gets fuzzier, which is harder to defend.
But since science has yet to come up with a definition of life that everyone can agree upon, all we have to work with is opinion. Are you going to prove someone's opinion wrong?

[redtail23]

We're not talking about a tumor or a cyst, or even a pimple, which, if left alone, will never develop into a fully functioning, sentient human being. We're talking about a "lump of tissue" that, if left alone, very probably *will* become a fully functioning sentient human being. If you think, however, that the two are equivilant; that a five-week fetus is no different than a cyst or a wart, then we simply have to sadly disagree on that point.
Well, technically, it depends on your definition of "very probably", now doesn't it? It seems that, if left alone, a fertilized egg has about as much chance of naturally aborting as it does surviving. cite (http://www.prevention.com/article/0,,s1-1-93-35-4166-1,00.html)
the fact that even among women trying to become pregnant [...] fertilized eggs fail to implant 40 to 60 percent of the time. They're eliminated when a woman menstruates.
That doesn't even count the 10-15% chance of miscarriage after the pregnancy is confirmed. cite (http://wawa.essortment.com/miscarriagepreg_rvup.htm)

I can't find the total numbers, but IIRC, any given fertilization has about a 25% chance of becoming a "fully functioning sentient human being", ignoring babies actually born with physical or mental problems that preclude that status. Not exactly what I'd call "very probably", which is one reason that I don't entirely understand the "must preserve all conceptions at all costs" perspective.

All conceptions will never survive, not even most conceptions will survive. So whence the moral imperative that claims a horrific wrong when occasionally a woman may choose not to carry a conception to term? (Excepting those who want to claim "god's will" vs. human will - I can't argue with that, I can only sadly disagree.)

[Essured]

I feel a fetus has a legal right to use the womb which they have implanted themselves in.

Then I think we have come to the point of difference between us. I am convinced that the fetus must have permission from its owner to stay in the womb. If the person does not wish to 'rent out' body parts, unfortunately, the other person (fetus) will be evicted. If it cannot survive without someone else's body parts, then it will die, if no technology or willing donor is available. That living human being is at the mercy of others for survival, but that doesn't force anyone to take mercy. Some may choose to take mercy, others not.

Also for your kidney argument, it is not natural for your kidney to be removed, which childbirth is, and not only natural but needed for humans to continue on this planet, but you knew that already.
Can you please elaborate on this comment? I'm not sure what you are trying to say, and I'd like to understand your point of view on this issue. What does 'natural' have to do with two people, one needing the other's body for survival?

[kanicbird]

kanicbird, you're being very inconsistent here. You keep claiming that a fetus has a moral and legal right to lifesupport inside a woman's body, just because it's there and must have such to survive. However, in every other instance mentioned, you say that either "someone else" is responsible, or the person has no such right.

Yes, I did go off focus a bit here. But I still feel morally that that womb is a needed environment for this human to survive and as such should not be taken from it.

The U.S. does not supply medication nor medical services to all who need them - that's exactly what the entire health care debate is about. Yes, if you have an immediate, life-threatening emergency, theoretically you can't be denied care

You call me inconsistant? Anyway again this is off focus.

But that's beside the point--you're really just trying to sidestep the whole exchange. A pregnant woman can't pawn off a pregnancy onto someone else (at least not with today's technology). So the question is, does a homeless person have the right to YOUR lawn, simply because they need a place to live? Does a starving person have the right to break into YOUR home and take food? Does a sick person have a right to steal YOUR medication, if they need it to live? Can YOU morally be forced to save another's life, even though it will require invasion and use of YOUR body? If your answer to these questions is "no", but you maintain your position regarding the rights of a fetus, then you're saying that a fetus should have "special rights" not available to any other person. Please explain why you feel that such a double-standard should be used.

The difference is that we were all fetuses at some point and have had that exact right, so no there is no difference, it's how humans develop. Children have different rights as adults, men have different rights as women. Only legally do we try to equalize some of the rights.

P.S. Your "natural" argument is asinine -...
...that mean you think it's OK for a woman to abort, as long as she only uses "natural" methods?

It goes beyond this, taking substances intentionally to kill our own healthy offspring (when we are not put into danger) is not a moral decision.

But since science has yet to come up with a definition of life that everyone can agree upon, all we have to work with is opinion. Are you going to prove someone's opinion wrong?

The idea is not to prove wrong, but to gain clarification.

A blob of unsentient tissue is not a person. I also think the definition of a "person" necessarily (but not exclusively) has to include a condition of not living in somebody's stomach

Ok so your answer is basically you don't know. You seem to want to define it within the limits of viability if removed from the womb, to after the cord is cut. While my limits are conception to brainwave activity.

I think I know your answer to this one as well, but if instead of abortion, if it was possible (hey I had to deal with future space aliens popping out of my stomach, you can deal w/ this one) to transplant a fetus w/ the same risk and trouble as aborting it, would you still like to see the mother be able to make the decision to kill the fetus if transplantation was possible?

[davenportavenger]

I think I know your answer to this one as well, but if instead of abortion, if it was possible (hey I had to deal with future space aliens popping out of my stomach, you can deal w/ this one) to transplant a fetus w/ the same risk and trouble as aborting it, would you still like to see the mother be able to make the decision to kill the fetus if transplantation was possible?
If transplantation technology was possible, would you be down at the hospital every nine months to carry another unwanted child? (Or your wife/mother/girlfriend/whatever, if you're male.)

[kanicbird]

Then I think we have come to the point of difference between us. I am convinced that the fetus must have permission from its owner to stay in the womb.

Yes, and I feel a lot of 'prochoice' people feel the way you do but don't care to say it in this way. So you do recognize that there is more then one item here, not just a pregnant woman, but a woman and a fetus.

If the person does not wish to 'rent out' body parts, unfortunately, the other person (fetus) will be evicted. If it cannot survive without someone else's body parts, then it will die, if no technology or willing donor is available. That living human being is at the mercy of others for survival,

You are giving this lump of cells very human like characteristics, like being given permission, and being evicted, granted mercy, survival and death. Perhaps that's just for my benifit.

but that doesn't force anyone to take mercy. Some may choose to take mercy, others not.

Remember that we are talking about morals, some may lead moral lives, some may not, again we do have free will to break moral law.

Can you please elaborate on this comment? I'm not sure what you are trying to say, and I'd like to understand your point of view on this issue. What does 'natural' have to do with two people, one needing the other's body for survival?

Well I did, but will say it again. This goes beyond the kidney at gunpoint arugment as we all came from a womb (well most of us, sometimes I wonder... well never mind) and as such needed that womb. I find it hypocritical for us as adults (or children) to turn around to others who just haven't developed as far and say sorry pal, your SOL.

[kanicbird]

If transplantation technology was possible, would you be down at the hospital every nine months to carry another unwanted child? (Or your wife/mother/girlfriend/whatever, if you're male.)

I said early on that it is morally wrong to abort if adoption is available, the same will apply to this, you need someone wanting to get the transplant and raise the child.

I have not given enough though to the situation when there are no more people willing to adopt.

[Essured]

So you do recognize that there is more then one item here, not just a pregnant woman, but a woman and a fetus.
Yes, I do recognise that.

You are giving this lump of cells very human like characteristics, like being given permission, and being evicted, granted mercy, survival and death. Perhaps that's just for my benifit.
No, it's not for your benefit. I've never called it a 'lump of cells'.

Remember that we are talking about morals, some may lead moral lives, some may not, again we do have free will to break moral law.
Just to check we're on the same page, do you agree that people are able to choose whether to be moral or not? Should they be able to choose to be immoral? Should laws be changed so that is it more difficult to be immoral?

Well I did, but will say it again. This goes beyond the kidney at gunpoint arugment as we all came from a womb (well most of us, sometimes I wonder... well never mind) and as such needed that womb. I find it hypocritical for us as adults (or children) to turn around to others who just haven't developed as far and say sorry pal, your SOL.
See, I don't find it hypocritical, I find it unrelated. Yes, my mother chose to rent out her womb (and the following 18 years of her life). So did yours. But we all make different choices than our parents did, because we are different people, with different thoughts, so what my mother did has no bearing on what I should do. If she chose to rent out her womb, but not raise me, I would be a different person with different thoughts today. If she decided not to rent out her womb to me, I would not be here typing away, and she would've had a much different life, with very different thoughts/experiences. So I guess the fact that I was once X, due to other people's choices, does not mean I have to make the same choices they did when I come across another X. I may make better choices, I may make worse choices, depending on the onlookers perspective.

[kanicbird]

Just to check we're on the same page, do you agree that people are able to choose whether to be moral or not? Should they be able to choose to be immoral? Should laws be changed so that is it more difficult to be immoral?

The OP is about morality, not legality, not religion. I am just staying w/i the bounds of the OP, and saying it is immoral to abort. I am also acknowledging that people have free will and can act immoral. I don't want to go into the states roll. (This is why I wanted to drop the kidney offshoot).

See, I don't find it hypocritical, I find it unrelated. Yes, my mother chose to rent out her womb (and the following 18 years of her life).

Did you get a receipt? It's not a fininatial transaction.

[Essured]

The OP is about morality, not legality, not religion. I am just staying w/i the bounds of the OP, and saying it is immoral to abort. I am also acknowledging that people have free will and can act immoral. I don't want to go into the states roll. (This is why I wanted to drop the kidney offshoot).
Alrighty then. Thanks, now I understand where you're coming from.
You think it's immoral, but acknowledge that people can act immorally.
I'm sure you also acknowledge that not everybody agrees with your view on morals?
It seems that we agree on most things (i.e, what the fetus is, etc) and just disagree on the final morality or immorality of abortion.

Did you get a receipt? It's not a fininatial transaction.
Where did this come from? No, of course I didn't get a receipt. I know it isn't a financial transaction. Carrying a child to term is a huge thing. A major, life changing experience, and if you keep the child and raise it, it completely alters your life in almost every way. I fully realise it's a huge deal, not just an exchange of parts. If it was as simple as a financial transaction, I might have done it a few times already, for others.

[kanicbird]

Alrighty then. Thanks, now I understand where you're coming from.
You think it's immoral, but acknowledge that people can act immorally.
I'm sure you also acknowledge that not everybody agrees with your view on morals?

Agreed, well I think that all people know that acting immorally is possible for humans, but I think what you are saying is what I consider moral others might consider immoral or amoral.

Also I did stray from the OP myself, as it is easy to do here, by adding things like law.

It seems that we agree on most things (i.e, what the fetus is, etc) and just disagree on the final morality or immorality of abortion.


Where did this come from? No, of course I didn't get a receipt. I know it isn't a financial transaction. Carrying a child to term is a huge thing. A major, life changing experience, and if you keep the child and raise it, it completely alters your life in almost every way. I fully realise it's a huge deal, not just an exchange of parts. If it was as simple as a financial transaction, I might have done it a few times already, for others.

It just seemed like you were devaulating the process.

[Essured]

Agreed, well I think that all people know that acting immorally is possible for humans, but I think what you are saying is what I consider moral others might consider immoral or amoral.
Bingo. To me, abortion is amoral. To you it's immoral. As long as you don't hold me at gunpoint to prevent me aborting (if I was to fall pregnant), you and I have no problems, just a difference of opinion.

It just seemed like you were devaulating the process.
Sorry if that's the impression I gave. I did not mean to. I am very aware of how big a deal being pregnant is, and how much bigger a deal being a parent is.

Thanks for the chance to see another persons perspective. :)

[Nobody]

88 percent of all legal abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and 56 percent take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2002).

Third-trimester abortions are extremely uncommon; fewer than 600 are performed per year. This irrefutable fact is documented by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the institution acknowledged by the Centers for Disease Control as having the most complete information on abortion practice. When Richard Cohen wrote in a June 1995 op-ed column that “just four one-hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks,” and that “most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found to be severely damanged or because the life of the mother is clearly in danger”
I know the second link is an opinion piece but the AGI numbers quoted are accurate, I just can't find a direct link to the AGI results (they are frequently quoted in these debates).
You keep throwing out "It's not a human," and "It's not a person," yet you offer nothing to back it up.
Your post mentions 8 and 12 weeks.
Again, from Diary of an Unborn Baby (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html)
Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.
and
Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.
Scientific proof that an unborn child has all a brain, a nervous system, and all major organs. If that isn't a human being to you, then please tell me scientifically why not. If it's because it's not as developed as us, then would you say that a severely mentally retarded person isn't a human?
You claim it can't feel pain. As stated above, by week 12 it most certainly feel pain, and it's not difficult to figure out, that this doesn't suddenly happen all at once, so it's safe to say that it can feel pain before that, although to a lesser degree the further back in time you go.
My belief that an unborn child is a human life isn't based on faith or religion, it's based on the scientific facts I've laid out before you and the other pro-choicers. I still have yet to hear from you, or any one else, a solid foundation behind the claims of "It's not a human."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You keep throwing out "It's not a human," and "It's not a person," yet you offer nothing to back it up.
Your post mentions 8 and 12 weeks.
Again, from Diary of an Unborn Baby (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html)

and

Scientific proof that an unborn child has all a brain, a nervous system, and all major organs. If that isn't a human being to you, then please tell me scientifically why not. If it's because it's not as developed as us, then would you say that a severely mentally retarded person isn't a human?
You claim it can't feel pain. As stated above, by week 12 it most certainly feel pain, and it's not difficult to figure out, that this doesn't suddenly happen all at once, so it's safe to say that it can feel pain before that, although to a lesser degree the further back in time you go.
My belief that an unborn child is a human life isn't based on faith or religion, it's based on the scientific facts I've laid out before you and the other pro-choicers. I still have yet to hear from you, or any one else, a solid foundation behind the claims of "It's not a human."
Your insufferable little glurge link presupposes it's own conclusions.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

A frog has a nervous system and a brain. A frog can feel pain. A frog is not a person.

[Nobody]

Your insufferable little glurge link presupposes it's own conclusions.
It is a Right to Life site, so it has a pro life slant, but the facts given are just that, facts.

[Nobody]

A frog has a nervous system and a brain. A frog can feel pain. A frog is not a person.
You've already made that point. What I'm asking, for the third time now, is when does somebody become a person?
You have consistantly faild to answer that. Pointing out that frog isn't a person does not prove that an unborn child also isn't a person. It also doesn't answer the question.
I've given my beliefs, I've given what I use to back them up. I hope that someone on the pro-choice side can do the same.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You've already made that point. What I'm asking, for the third time now, is when does somebody become a person?
You have consistantly faild to answer that. Pointing out that frog isn't a person does not prove that an unborn child also isn't a person. It also doesn't answer the question.
I've given my beliefs, I've given what I use to back them up. I hope that someone on the pro-choice side can do the same.
I did answer the question. I said when it doesn't live in somebody's stomach.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It is a Right to Life site, so it has a pro life slant, but the facts given are just that, facts.
The facts do not impress me and the language is completely self-serving.

[faithfool]

You've already made that point. What I'm asking, for the third time now, is when does somebody become a person?

Don't know if this will help or answer what you're looking for, but my definition is when that baby transforms to viable outside the womb and sentient. Up until then, in my view, although they're infinitely more than this crude term implies, they're basically parasitic. I don't really feel that way, but that's the best thing I can think of to use to describe it and why I, personally, think it doesn't actually constitute a human in the classical sense lest it passes the above point.

[Nobody]

I did answer the question. I said when it doesn't live in somebody's stomach.
And what is the basis for this?

[Nobody]

The facts do not impress me and the language is completely self-serving.
Facts are facts, whether you're impressed or not.

[Nobody]

Don't know if this will help or answer what you're looking for, but my definition is when that baby transforms to viable outside the womb and sentient. Up until then, in my view, although they're infinitely more than this crude term implies, they're basically parasitic. I don't really feel that way, but that's the best thing I can think of to use to describe it and why I, personally, think it doesn't actually constitute a human in the classical sense lest it passes the above point.
So, once out of the womb the baby magically transforms into a sentient human being?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And what is the basis for this?
Common sense and a concern for the rights of women.

Any dfeinition is going to have to be arbitrary. When do YOU think a person becomes a person?

[faithfool]

So, once out of the womb the baby magically transforms into a sentient human being?

No, I hope I didn't imply that. It happens before that, but obviously it's quite a nebulous line that I don't think anyone can actually define. For example, take age of consent laws. A child doesn't magically reach adulthood when they cross the line on their birthday from being 15 to 16 (or 17 to 18, etc. on up depending on where one is at), however we legally and ethically view them that way because it is imperative for us to place the arbitrary line somewhere. I feel this is a similar concept. But I do believe that it's one of those things that, in each individual person's opinion, must be decided for themselves and not legislated by the government or others. And only for themselves.

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=Essured]Bingo. To me, abortion is amoral. To you it's immoral. As long as you don't hold me at gunpoint to prevent me aborting (if I was to fall pregnant), you and I have no problems, just a difference of opinion.
[QUOTE]

Essured I have to admit I had to wind down this as I don't have the time or energy to keep this up. I understand your POV, and is the most honest 'prochoice' position as I see it.

One question, if the fetus is human, but can not stay implanted due to the woman not wanting it there, do we have a right to kill the fetus, or just remove it from the uterus walls and allow it to die on it's own?

OK Lets see what else is out there...

Good nothing for me.

[Essured]

I understand your POV, and is the most honest 'prochoice' position as I see it.
Keep in mind that the pro-choice position of the fetus not being a 'person', while I disagree with it, they are being honest too, as they see it. I really don't think anyone is trying to come up with arguments to allow them to kill a fetus (bar a few maniacs), same as I don't think pro-lifers are trying to punish women for having sex (bar the usual maniacs).

One question, if the fetus is human, but can not stay implanted due to the woman not wanting it there, do we have a right to kill the fetus, or just remove it from the uterus walls and allow it to die on it's own?
You know, I'm not sure. I haven't thought about it. My primary focus is the fact that nobody else should be able to use my body without my permission. I see no need to kill the fetus. In my point of view, the killing of the fetus is kind of incidental to the process, not the aim.

Let's see, abortion by current technology results in the killing of the fetus. If a new technology was to arise that could remove the fetus from the womb (with no difference in impact on the woman) without killing it, that opens a whole new aspect to things. I'm thinking pod-babies, since I doubt enough women will donate their wombs to nurture the freshly evicted fetus. Some sort of synthetic womb. Kinda freaky! Maybe even people who want children will use this SynthaWomb, to avoid stretch marks, incontinence, uterine prolapse, etc, etc.? I guess the bio-parents will then face an astronomical bill to finance the synthetic gestation, unless they can immediately offer it up for adoption? Interesting scenario. I wonder if this technology will ever be created or if another type of birth control will be developed to make the 'need' for it obsolete?

[Nobody]

Common sense and a concern for the rights of women.

Any dfeinition is going to have to be arbitrary. When do YOU think a person becomes a person?
Conception.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So an egg with some jizz on it is a "person" to you?

My definition is better.

[RaftPeople]

My personal view:

1) Life begins at conception.
2) While still an unborn baby, the baby and mother are in a special situation different from our normal independant form of life. This stage requires balancing the needs of multiple parties.
3) When the baby is born, new rules.

While in stage 2, we try to apply language that simply doesn't apply to the situation.

Is it a person? Well, kind of but not really, until you get to a certain point...
Is it not a person? Well, it is, kind of, almost, but not quite yet...

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=Essured]Keep in mind that the pro-choice position of the fetus not being a 'person', while I disagree with it, they are being honest too, as they see it. I really don't think anyone is trying to come up with arguments to allow them to kill a fetus (bar a few maniacs), same as I don't think pro-lifers are trying to punish women for having sex (bar the usual maniacs).

Essured I had to think over your POV some more last night and it cleared up a particular position that I just could not understand from a pro life POV. The case of allowing abortion in the case of rape. Which to me is killing a innocent 3rd party for the crimes of another.

This depends on accepting the act of consensual sex (or forced sex if it's the woman doing the forcing) as granting permission, while sex forced onto her means that the fetus does not have permission unless granted later.

I'm not saying you agree w/ what I stated, but before this I though allowing abortion for rape was just a political compromise w/ no founding in logic coming from a pro life side.

[SentientMeat]

The point at which personhood is legally bestowed upon biological matter comprising a potential human is utterly arbitrary, be it the contents of a condom/tampon, a just-fertilised egg, an 18-week old foetus or a toddler, as I argued here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=256127).

Conception is no less arbitrary than some nominal 18-week threshold.

[RaftPeople]

The point at which personhood is legally bestowed upon biological matter comprising a potential human is utterly arbitrary, be it the contents of a condom/tampon, a just-fertilised egg, an 18-week old foetus or a toddler, as I argued here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=256127).

Conception is no less arbitrary than some nominal 18-week threshold.

I agree with you on this point if you are referring to legally bestowing personhood.

But after reading your linked post I have the following question:
Would you be uncomfortable defining life as at least the point in which you have a working cell such that the DNA contains a combination of the mother's and father's?

(now I know we could get into all kinds of exceptions that may occur in the process, but I would like to avoid that for a second and just find out if you agree/disagree with the general notion)

[Snickers]

Exactly, SentientMeat. Exactly.

Master Control, you've repeatedly asked Dio for his take on when life begins. I'm here to argue that he doesn't know. As you don't know. None of us do. You can pick some arbitrary point (like conception) and support it with reasons, and I can come back with some other arbitrary point and support *it* with reasons. SentientMeat can come up with another, and so on. We'll never agree. Why? Because as someone said before (think it was Diogenes, but I'm not certain), it's a continuum. There's not a one point, *bang* it's a baby type of thing. You want that *bang*, you even think you've defined it, and that's great, if it makes you feel better. Please understand that I might have issues with it, however. Please understand that I might not be so easily capable of defining my *bang*.

[SentientMeat]

Would you be uncomfortable defining life as at least the point in which you have a working cell such that the DNA contains a combination of the mother's and father's?'Life'? The two separate cells of sperm and egg are 'life' (if bacteria are 'life'). And the 'working cell' quickly splits to become two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis) cells again.

And so we are faced with two different pairs of cells which contain portions of both sets of DNA. How can we call one pair 'life' and the other not?

[Nobody]

So an egg with some jizz on it is a "person" to you?

My definition is better.
It's not an egg with some jizz on it, the egg and sperm join together and start a human life.
And how is your definition better? By your logic, if personhood should be decided on by the government, then there was nothing wrong with slavery, since the Dred Scott case determined that slaves weren't people.
Anyway, most people agree that
1) Human beings are people.
2) You stop being concidered a human being/person when your life ends
Then it makes since to be concidered a human being when your life begins. And that doesn't happen until an egg and sperm join.

[roger thornhill]

'Life'? The two separate cells of sperm and egg are 'life' (if bacteria are 'life'). And the 'working cell' quickly splits to become two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis) cells again.

And so we are faced with two different pairs of cells which contain portions of both sets of DNA. How can we call one pair 'life' and the other not?
Doesn't this have something to do with the process by which two cells which previously could only look at each other and dream of producing life come together (bang! surely this is the bang we're looking for - and far more attestable and present than any "big bang" by which the cosmos was created) and produce that new life?

[SentientMeat]

roger: Doesn't this have something to do with the process by which two cells which previously could only look at each otherCells have no eyes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_sensing) and dream of producing life[/quote[Cells have no dreams. come together ... and produce that new life?Cells are life. The sperm and egg are life, and the daughter nuclei affter meiosis are life. They are both potentially more complex life.

MC: Then it makes since to be concidered a human being when your life begins. And that doesn't happen until an egg and sperm join.I argue that a separate sperm and egg are just as much 'life' as the two daughter nuclei after meiosis, and that your threshold is as arbitrary as randomly plucking a date of 18 weeks out of thin air.

[Nobody]

I argue that a separate sperm and egg are just as much 'life' as the two daughter nuclei after meiosis, and that your threshold is as arbitrary as randomly plucking a date of 18 weeks out of thin air.
Sperm and eggs are life, but not human life. That doesn't happen until they join together.
A baby starts out as a embrio, which multiplies and multiplies into the complex creatures we are today. This starts when an egg and sperm join. An egg can't multiply into a more complex creature, neither can a sperm. Human life starts after they join together. So there's nothing arbitrary about that threshold.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

An egg with some jizz on it is not a person.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's not an egg with some jizz on it, the egg and sperm join together and start a human life.
And how is your definition better? By your logic, if personhood should be decided on by the government, then there was nothing wrong with slavery, since the Dred Scott case determined that slaves weren't people.
Anyway, most people agree that
1) Human beings are people.
2) You stop being concidered a human being/person when your life ends
Then it makes since to be concidered a human being when your life begins. And that doesn't happen until an egg and sperm join.
"Human beings are people?" Redundant much?

A cell is not a person. Personhood begins at birth. Any line we draw will have to be arbitrary because there is no moment when a fetus becomes a person any more than there is a moment when a child becomes an adult.

It's the sheerest fantasy to imagine that blastocytes, zygotes and embryos are people and it's not worth the suffering that would be caused to real human beings if we were to actually enforce laws designed to humor those kinds of delusions.

[Nobody]

Sorry that you feel that way.
Anyway, at 4 pages now some people are beginning to repeat themselves, and if I hang around much longer, so will I.
I've said what I've wanted to say in my previous posts, so, see you all in some different ones.

[Nobody]

Sorry that you feel that way.
Anyway, at 4 pages now some people are beginning to repeat themselves, and if I hang around much longer, so will I.
I've said what I've wanted to say in my previous posts, so, see you all in some different ones.
That should have read, see you all in some different threads.

[beagledave]

"Human beings are people?" Redundant much?

Personhood begins at birth.


Any line we draw will have to be arbitrary because there is no moment when a fetus becomes a person any more than there is a moment when a child becomes an adult.



Makes a definitive statement. Says that definitive statements like that can't be made.


Umm..yeah.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Makes a definitive statement. Says that definitive statements like that can't be made.


Umm..yeah.
You can (and must) draw definitive legal lines regardless of the philosophical ambiguity.

[SentientMeat]

Sperm and eggs are life, but not human life.Their DNA is 100% human. What does one call life comprising 100% human DNA?
Human life starts after they join together. So there's nothing arbitrary about that threshold.Joining together is arbitrary, since the cell splits again soon after.