You ask any pro-life person whose rights are greater, the mother or the fetus, and I guarantee you they will answer “the fetus.” Or “the baby.”
I do wish every woman considering abortion would let the child be adopted by a homosexual couple. It would certainly put a stick in the pro-life wheels.
I have added this to my I-completely-agree-with-Kimstu file.*
*said file does not take up a huge amount of room in my filing cabinet, but still. 
Actually that is an objective way of determining personhood, so long as your rules for determining/approximating fetal viability are reproducible and universally applicable. Something doesn’t have to be universally liked to be objective, it just has to not vary based on the status of the observer. And the rule “You’re a person once you hit fifteen months and not a moment earlier” does not vary based on perspective or opinion.
And for the record, depending on how accurate I believe the estimate to be, I too would consider fetal viability to be a reasonable cut-off point for elective abortions. (Medically necessary ones are another matter, of course.)
The right to life would seem to trump the right not to be inconvenienced. So it’s not a level playing field also consider that it is most often the case that the willing act of the mother put her and the new person in that condition.
A person’s right to life would seem to trump the right not to be inconvenienced. If we’re not talking about an actual person all bets are off - a cow’s right to life doesn’t trump the inconvenience of me not having a hamburger.
Nope. What it is is an objective way of assessing personhood status of an individual if you’re already arbitrarily decided that rights-bearing personhood = fetal viability.
But there’s nothing objective about the original choice to equate those two characteristics or to declare that the latter determines the former.
Methinks kanicbird has never been pregnant. I haven’t either, but my wife and daughters have and it can be more than an inconvenience. Worth it when the child is wanted, for sure, but not a walk in the park in the rain.
Inconvenient for me, a bit more than inconvenient for them.
Current record for most premature baby was set in 1987 at 21 weeks 5 days gestation. Elective abortion limit in even the most liberal state (Oregon) is 20 weeks. Neat how that works out, innit?
Is this true? I thought NY passed a law that basically got rid of limits and made it a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.
I think relying on fetal viability for a limit is a mistake – the lower limit for viability may continue to come down, but those fetuses have serious medical needs and often have many problems that continue later in life. Will the parents be on the hook for caring for a, say, 18 week old fetus that they don’t want if the doctors say they think they can get it to survive?
I think Canada’s law is the way to go. That is, no abortion law and it’s between a mother and her doctor. They seem to be dealing with it just fine. I guess the concern in the US is that our doctors are evil psychopaths who just want to kill children or something – maybe it’s true. Maybe we’re special that way.
Pregnancy is not (as the anti-abortion crew describe it) a “temporary inconvenience.” It is a major, life altering event. Not every pregnant woman thinks she can raise a child or hand her baby over to two strangers like a sack of potatoes. Yet those are the only two options the anti-abortion people give her.
Most zealous pro lifers have as the basis of their belief a religious conviction that human life is sacred; that a fetus (and an embryo, for that matter) are human life; and that therefore deliberate termination of a human life is wrong.
If you just want an effective argument for the vast majority of folks who hold such a position, use this one:
You believe there is life after death.
You believe this eternal life is substantially more significant than our temporal existence on earth.
You believe in hell for those who reach an age of accountability.
You believe dead embryos and fetuses do not reach an age of accountability and therefore are not sent to hell.
Abortionists have therefore saved far more souls than did Billy Graham. They have a 100% success rate in delivering a soul into eternal bliss.
According to your paradigm, where exactly is the tragedy for a dead fetus who goes right to heaven without risk of reaching an age of accountablity, at which point he risks eternal damnation?
The anti-abortion people I’ve spoken to KNOW that the girl having the abortion is going to have to stand before God and be punished for her actions. They don’t believe this, they know it with every fiber of their being.
And abortion carries many health risks, including giving men “teh gay.” However, the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy carries no risks whatsoever.
Pregnancy can be an ecstatic joy; or it can be a life-threatening disaster; or it can be some of both; or it can be somewhere inbetween.
It is not a god damned “inconvenience”.
Since pregnancy does not happen to men, many see it as an “inconvenience.” Like rape, only lasting longer.
Theres an excellent book called Freakonomics, which speculates that the crime rate went down precisely because there weren’t as many unwanted children being born, and unwanted children are more likely to end up criminals.(once abortion was legalized)
Elective abortion has the 20 week limit–medically necessary abortions do not have a limit, as is proper. 20 weeks gives a woman plenty of time to know she’s pregnant, make up her mind whether or not to carry to term and take care of business if she’s not ready to be a parent. If after 20 weeks it’s determined the fetus is nonviable for the host of reasons in the realm of possibility then a therapeutic abortion is required.
Viability is not, as we can see, an endlessly lowered expectation–the current record preemie was born in 1987 so in 33 years of medical advancements we haven’t managed to keep any baby born before 21 weeks alive. There’s a hard limit to viability–organ development is on a standard schedule and without placental support there’s just no way for a preemie baby to manage the trick of growing its bits so until we figure out an artificial placenta–basically, until we develop an artificial womb–it’s not gonna happen. And if we figure out an artificial womb then the question might very well become moot because why go through pregnancy if you can test tube up a fetus and bung it into a machine to bake?
Then there’s nothing objective about personhood at all, and your entire argument and position is nonsensical. Whether or not something qualifies as a person has always been a matter of arbitrary definition, and if you can’t accept that arbitrary definitions can be objective then there is no such thing as objective personhood.
For the record, I am not the one who came up with that verbiage. I was just carrying it forward because it wasn’t the part of his statement I was addressing. One picks their battles, and I picked the other one.
Thanks for that clarification on the NY abortion law. Ignorance fought!
So should pro-choice movement rename itself to be pro-abortion-choice? No of course not, we all understand that we are talking about choice in the abortion context. Just as we all understand that pro-life is referring to life in the pregnancy context.
No, they think it’s murder. If you thought it was murder would you be satisfied with the ability to try and convince people not to commit murder or would you make it illegal and throw people in jail?
I don’t disagree. Pro-lifers certainly seem to consider abortion to be murder.