No. They’re not removed until they’re born. These are protections which are only afforded post-natally.
Not really. Seeing as how there are many other rights which a fetus is denied as compared to a newborn baby, there is equal legal standing for saying it is not. Unless rights are equivalent total equivalency cannot be extrapolated in this manner.
I appologize then, I thought you were saying that she’d be wrong not to get an abortion.
I think that abortion and adoption are both more responsible choices than keeping a baby you don’t want and/or can’t take care of, so yes, sometimes keeping the baby is irresponsible and hurts the baby.
You said you didn’t understand the “disconnect.” There is no “disconnect”; there is a subjective sense of value. Perhaps you would always value a fetus. Perhaps I would never value a fetus. A third woman might value the fetus she wants and not value the fetus she doesn’t want, just as I value certain things at certain times and don’t value them at others.
Why do you think the definition of “human” used in the definition of “murder” you cited is the first one in your link (the one you quoted) rather than the second one ( - the one that simply states “a person”)? In other words, why did you cherry-pick your cite?
But the “abuse” took place before they were removed from the uterus. The “crime” was committed on the victim before they were born. This is different from the mother giving her newborn baby some drugs. The drugs are being provided in utero. No, they are not performing c-sections and ripping the baby out to protect it. But upon birth, tests are performed to see if the child had been previously abused. If so, the child is taken into custody. This shows that the entity while in utero is being afforded the right of protection from abuse.
I agree that there are matters of equivalency involved here. I believe, though, that it is better to provide the rights of protection to an unwilling victim incapable of self-defense than an active abuser. When comatose patients have been abused by their care-givers, the abuser is punished. I know, “The patient had been born already and so has rights.” But if the law states that abuse can occur before birth, then the unborn is afforded some legal standing for protection.
How far the protection can be extrapolated is debatable. This could be used by either side of the debate to set clear deadlines (so to speak) on when we can begin affording rights to the unborn that outweigh the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother. Could it even be extended to smoking and nutrition? Exposure to hazardous materials? Women have successfully sued companies for exposure to toxic materials that resulted in birth defects. Could women be held accountable for continuing to work around toxic substances while pregnant? If a pregnant woman develops gestational diabetes but doesn’t follow the recommended medical protocol, is she intentionally harming the fetus? Could a child with birth defects sue his mother for pre-natal harm?
For decades, there has been a judicially created right to reproduce (back when states tried to prevent mentally and physically handicapped people from reproducing). People who would forgive abortions in the case of rape are recognizing the corresponding right NOT to reproduce however, the right not to reproduce is abdicated once you engage in consensual sex. Otherwise why allow abortions in rape cases? You don’t have to raise the child of your rapist and we stopped punishing children for the sins of the father hundreds of years ago and unless you think that the mental trauma of giving birth to your rapist’s child as enough of a reason to kill it, there is little reason to forgive abortion in the case of rape if you think it is otherwise murder.
Most people who talk about late term abortions (partial birth abortions) are either pro-choice but think that additional restrictions are allowable (informed consent, cool down period, ec.), or engaging in the same sort of rhetoric that try to convince people that limiting partial birth abortions will eventually lead to abortions being performed in a back alley with a rusty coat hanger.
Right, Catholic or not who thinks they shouldn’t use birth control, but then has an abortion when they get pregnant…" I wasn’t talking about the cost of birth control, I was talking about the faulty logic of thinking that birth control is not moral, but abortion is a acceptable alternative.
I get that, but I believe that human life has inherent value.
Well, that’s the first definition. There are others in that cite(and other dictionaries). My definition of “person” is closer to the one from Wikipedia:
[
](Person - Wikipedia) - it lacks somewhat my concept of “Societal Actor”, but it fits better than any for the purposes of this debate, with none of the nasty circularity you’ve just introduced by your dictionary definition citations.
Read that page, BTW, it has a nice section on the personhood of foetuses too. Common Law, at least, sets personhood at birth.
OK. But the definition of “person” refers to “human” and “human” refers to genus Homo. I realize it is a little self defining and circuitous. Repetition = redundant = duplication = repetition = etc. And unless the unborn entity is Ororo Monroe or Charles Xavier, they are members of H. sapiens and thus humans/persons.
Hey, if it’s always murder, why make an exception for threatening the mother’s life? That’s not very “enlightened”. Not that I claim my views to be such, and not that I haven’t backed my views with further “illumination” - unlike your drive-by post. You don’t say why it is unenlightened, for instance. Enlighten me.
Crap, are we looking at another 9-pager? Why start new threads, maybe we should just petition for an “Abortion Debate Sticky” in GD?
Not the one I just quoted - just “a being” - this leaves room for the personhood of A.I.s, uplifted modified chimpanzees, and ETs. But does not equate “humanity” with “personhood”
Fair enough, though there are reasons other than moral ones why conventional contraceptives are undesirable.
I’ve cut your post down so it doesn’t take up too much room, erie774; assume I agree with everything you say in the bits I cut out.
Again, though, this only follows one route of rights given to humans; that of protection from the actions of others. Obviously it’s an important right, but it is not the only right we as persons are given; while legal judgements of this kind may in the future increase the protections afforded to fetuses, that again cannot be extrapolated to total personhood without total recognition.
Most catholics don’t think birth control is immoral. Many refrain from practicing responsible sex because the church disapproves and they feel threatened.
I said you did not appear to be motivated by a desire to re-entrench patriarchy. I didn’t say that your actions (in support of making abortion illegal) were not actively contributing to that end.
The point of my post is that you (and other pro-life folks in this thread and elsewhere) do not occupy a moral high ground — you made a moral-imperative argument, “period”. I made one back at you, explaining that whether you have evil intentions or not, the social movement in which you are a participant is attempting to do a great evil, and my opposition to it is a moral cause.
You need not agree with it, (just as I do not agree with your moral imperative), but just as I do you the honor of akcnowledging what you say to be your motivations, I ask that you acknowledge that not every pro-choice partisan is arguing for an amoral right to unimpeded convenience. I’m certainly not.
Not so baffling. Without getting into the “cafeteria Catholic” issue, it’s entirely possible to agree with the Church/Pope’s overall message while disagreeing with some of the details.
I agree. It’s just not OK with the pope. And he’s the one calling the shots.