I could give you a lengthy explanation, much of which would involve freedom of religious expression, with a dash of nosy neighbor ethics and a side order of emotional hysteria.
But even that’s debatable. There are some anti-choice crusaders who sincerely feel that they are on the cutting edge of human rights - that we’ve accepted blacks and women as fully human and worthy of equal rights, and that fetuses are the next step, needing our legal protection until we recognize them as human beings. (I find this tactic to be the most compelling, myself, but not so compelling as to move me into that camp.)
This flies in the face of those who argue privacy rights, and above all the right to choose what goes on inside their own bodies. Add a dash of feminism, which taught us we need not be slaves to the reproductive cycle, nor need we become mothers to be happy and fulfilled, and it’s pretty antithetical to the anti-choice position.
And top it all off with the cherry that is freedom of speech. We disagree out loud because we can.
No. It isn’t. I know you’ve had this pointed out to you before, but who knows, maybe pointing out your faulty logic and lies one more time will be what pushes you into accepting the truth.
Where, precisely, are you getting your statistics? Because I seem to recall reading that the number of abortions performed has decreased over the last decade or so. Too, far more women have abortions without the unending grief and anguish you reference than do. Hint: Learning to pay even a modicum of attention to the world around you will go a long way toward making your life easier.
If one of your dying neighbors decides to make use of your body without your permission, do you not reserve the right to kill him or her to protect yourself?
This might be because it is not exactly like her body: it is a part of her body that also has moral interests (at least at some point in its development). Biologically, I don’t think there is any powerful reason to distinguish the mother from the fetus before birth. But the reality remains that you can’t just handwave away the moral interests of a being just because it is part of another being.
I don’t have to. Whether or not it will one day become human is irrelevant. It might or might not.
But in your case, you claimed that your shock came in realizing that it had particular functions. Well, might argument is that animals have those functions too: indeed most have them to a MUCH more refined degree. If you quaver at killing a fetus because you suddenly realize that it has a beating heart and can feel pain to some limited degree, it is bizarre that you would lack a similar concern for another being that has all this and more to lose as well.
The potential future is not history. There is no logical or even medical reason why I can’t take a cow embryo and alter it in such a way that it will grow a human-like brain. Or make a human fetus grow a cow-like brain. Genes are instructions for chemical processes that unfold throughout development. The cell types involved are set up to use these instructions, along with the supporting structure of a womb, to carry this process out on their own. But there is no special magic to this fact. Any number of things can be done to change the course of this process at any point, and none is more or less natural than any other.
I guess then that you could see why a statement like “Why did I do a 180 on this? Because, this fetus, this embryo is a living being with all the functions of a human being.” could use some further clarification.
Human rights and valuing human life are just proxies for discussing moral worth and moral interests. Otherwise they are arbitrary. Why value human life if not because humans have particular capacities and interests?
If you are a vegitarian, then I guess I have you pegged wrong. But I’m not wrong, am I?
Embryos (in the sense of the early stage of development) don’t have awareness because they don’t have nervous systems. Fetuses develop these capacities at various stages in their life. I didn’t deny that. In fact, as I pointed out, most animals have the same if not more awareness and sentience, if those are really your guides to what is right and wrong.
Fetuses are not outsiders making use of my body. They are an outgrowth of my body: but a part that grows to have moral interests of its own. Like it or not, we aren’t perfect Platonic forms floating around in some Ayn Rand wonderland. We live with the messy reality that lives form out of other lives, without any of the comfy, discrete abstractness that allows us to dismiss their existence out of hand.
Yeah, and it was particularly classy of her to link to “Silent Scream” as well - surely I’m not the only one who is aware that that video is a notorious hoax, carefully edited to give an appearance that the fetus was reacting to a stimulus that it wasn’t.
Pyroto gives the same emotionally manipulative arguments that the worst of the pro-lifers do, and she’s endorsing the same sort of emotional bullying that many pro-lifers see as a step towards banning abortion. Showing a mother an ultrasound no doubt triggers built-in mothering instincts, but trying to use appeals to a woman’s non-rational drives to convince her of things that aren’t true - for instance, that a fetus can somehow feel an abortion - is a disgusting illustration of how limited some people’s commitment to the truth can be.
Which is a good point. Now, most women make a decision like this soberly, and I doubt many of them are throwing parties later in the evening. But research clearly shows that this notion that every woman who has an abortion is emotionally scarred forever is another lie.
Best I can find is from Planned Parenthood. It’s a well-written piece with supporting evidence, but it’s from a pro-choice source. Problem is there don’t seem to be any sources of information that aren’t one-sided.
Which is it, an outgrowth of a woman’s body, or a separate entity. If it is part of the woman’s body, the fetus is part of her and she speaks for the fetus.
The fact is that the embryo is a separate entity that has attached itself (or not) to the woman, with or without her permission.
No, we are living in the United States of America. A country founded on the Self-Evident Truth that All People are Created Equal.
There is no division in all. Nobody has greater right to your body than you, not a fetus, not an outgrowth of your body, and not even a dying neighbor.
It is your body, your choice; it is her body, her choice.
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
Thank you. I was puzzling over her statement earlier today, because I know people who’ve had trouble seeing the heartbeat on 5 week ultrasounds and I was almost positive that there was no chance of seeing arms, legs or anything else. Not having any practical experience in this area, I didn’t like to jump in so I was happy to see this post.
I’m pro choice because while I don’t think abortion is a desirable option, I think people who don’t feel they are equipped to become parents being forced to do so regardless is a worse option. I can name several children who would have been better off if they’d been aborted rather than brought into the world by their selfish, clueless parents - at least they would have suffered less. I have more respect for people who chose to abort a child that they can’t offer any sort of life to than people who proceed with the pregnancy despite all common sense telling them that it’s a bad idea.
It’s both and neither. Reality doesn’t follow strict individuality.
(cue the national anthem, rwjefferson waves the flag frantically…) which has all of what to do with this issue?
I suppose that’s why infanticide, or at least leaving your child to starve due to unwillingness to let that parasite demand resources it did nothing to earn, is legal, no?
No, but dropping your unwanted infant off at a selected safe spot, like a hospital or fire station IS legal, no questions asked, no paperwork, no legal action.
There are rules for abortion, too. Just like I can’t drop off my infant anywhere, I can’t go just anywhere to have my unwanted fetus removed - it must be done by a licensed doctor within a specific time frame.
The difference is that if I drop my fetus on your doorstep, there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to help it live. Anyone can nourish my baby.
It’s telling that the OP hasn’t come back to defend this stance following your first post, WhyNot. I was about to post a similar reaction as I read through the thread this morning, having had an ultrasound scan myself at six weeks. You beat me to it with your ‘BS’ call.
What showed up in my scan was nothing remotely near the OP’s description.
I don’t really know what to call this. Creative writing?
??? I am beginning to see a disconnect between reality and your interpretations. You are mistaken, there is reality and there is our interpretation of reality. Our interpretation does not change the reality.
It is my experience self evident rights are not self evident to tyrants. I define tyrant as one that would impose their will on another.
I’m not sure your interpretation/definition/use of the word infanticide is accurate. It is my understanding that infanticide is not legal. Your words and conclusions are not mine.
I would prefer to keep this debate rational. I can understand that you feel strongly about this. So do I.
If you do not understand that self-evident truths and unalienable rights pertain to all human interaction, I cannot help you. That understanding seems to be a gift and a talent that too few possess. It is my experience that this lack of understanding is behind virtually all human conflict.
Say, by poisoning them to death, or vaccuuming out their brains?
So, what exactly changes when a baby is inside and outside of the womb then? What’s the magical Randian transition that suddenly makes killing no longer okay?
If I accidentally, through no fault of my own, am temporarily hooked up your circulatory system by a third party, it’s okay to shoot me in the head for trespassing?
Then start responding to arguments with something other than cheap bombast and sneers.
I guess you’ve missed all the press about Bush’s new pals, the adopted embryos. There is nothing fundamental about viability. It has changed and will continue to change with technology. Already the period of transplantable viability is shortening on BOTH ENDS. Do you really want to stake your position on the technical and mutable question of whether some fetus/baby can be safely deposited in a donation box and nourished to a long life?
The reality is, there isn’t any sensible argument that can explain why killing something in the womb is okay but killing it two hours later after it’s out of the womb is a terrible crime.
Yes, that’s exactly what I stake it on. And that means that my position re: number of weeks for legal abortion will change as the technology changes. As soon as it’s technologically feasable and reliable for another responsible and willing adult to care for the infant, and a willing human incubator can be found to complete the gestation or pay for a long hospitalization prior to adoption, then abortion should no longer be an option. At the moment, that’s around 27 weeks, and the abortion laws concur. If an infant is delivered after that, then most of the time she can be cared for by the state if the mother doesn’t want her.
When my daughter was born severely premature at 23 weeks (thanks for the lurker-support, Cat Jones!) we had several conversations with her doctors about what we would do if things went catastrophically wrong and she developed severe health problems. We all agreed that she would, in certain circumstances, be taken off her ventilator and allowed to die a natural death. Those circumstances were agreed upon by us and her doctors ahead of time. As it turned out, she did wonderfully and is a healthy baby girl. But yes, if she had suffered irreversable catastrophic brain or kidney damage, we would have “killed” her, and there would be nothing illegal about it, even though she was a born baby. That was always our prerogative as her parents.
So if you want to increase the cost of abortions by having them removed by c-section, put on a ventilator and then taken off at the parent’s prerogative, then I suppose that would be one option, but it seems a silly one to me. Any infant young enough to be legally aborted would need major life support, and it’s always up to the next of kin to pull life support. If you want to change that fundamental piece of our health care system, you’re entering a whole new debate.
In fact, one could think of the mother’s body itself as the ventilator and feeding tube. Why should she be allowed to stop the mechanical one but not the one powered by her own heart and gut?
