Well, BEE-EFF-DEE, Jack. Throw in some testimony from civil rights and law experts while you’re at it. Some of them might argue that women should have control over their own reproduction.
Americans make quite a few exceptions allowing the legal killing of another person; in state executions and in self-defense, for example. Even if you declare a fetus to be a human being (not a declaration I would make, but let’s say for the sake of argument) there’s no reason you couldn’t make a legal exception covering abortion.
Since in most venues, a fetus is not declared the equivalent of a human being, the legal exception is not required.
In any event, I’d make up my own mind on the subject and want women to have that same opportunity.
Actually, this was an American-produced spot by the same people who always added the tagline “Life. What a beautiful choice.”
Please don’t dis my province.
I dunno, do you? That’s a choice you’ll have to make (get it?)
I have lots of regrets in my life, and while I might advise a younger person not to make the same choices I did, I’m disinclined to take those choices away from them in the name of protecting them. It would be a pretty damned arrogant thing for me to do.
So you take responsibility for your actions? Good. I think everyone should. Do I want freedom of action taken away from people? Hell, no.
Now you’re changing the subject. The claim was made that the fetus is not a human being. That is a question for medical and scientific experts to settle, NOT lawyers.
Bring up the question of reproductive freedom if you wish, but that was not the specific claim being addressed. Don’t pretend that it was.
Be considered by parties making moral judgments, with respect to the currect topic of discussion.
Of course a ban would be pragmatic. My post was meant to seperate individual judgments, which are not pragmatic or utilitarian in nature, with state actions, which in any representative democracy must end up as pragmatic implimentations (there must be a way to do it and the support for it or it won’t get done). Thus arguing that I support abortion, for example, for pragmatic reasons sort of falls short of saying much. I mean, how could I practically impliment that?
And if you could ban it I might even consider that worthy of consideration as your justification.
Explained above, I hope.
What is so hard to grasp, then, about abortion being legal if that has also occurred? Not a very motivating argument.
Ah, but the larger subject of this thread is whether or not abortion should be banned, which is certainly a legal rather than a medical issue.
My own stance is that even if a formal consensus was reached by the medical profession that a fetus is a human being, abortion rights should be protected, anyway. I don’t think doctors should be making law any more than I believe lawyers should be treating patients.
Granted. As I said though, I was addressing the specific claim that you made – namely, that the fetus is not a human being.
I’m not saying that the legal ramifications should not be explored. Not at all. Rather, I was refuting a specific medical and scientific claim that was given in defense of abortion. Since this claim was medical and scientific in nature, it is disingenous to refute my answer by saying “Well, BEE-EFF-DEE, Jack. Throw in some testimony from civil rights and law experts while you’re at it.”
Not necessarily. If you’re asking when a fetus should have the same legal rights, or more legal rights (i.e. the legal right to damage someone else’s body for their own gain), then you’re talking about a legal issue to be decided by lawyers. The opposite sides here are not a matter of medical consideration, since both sides acknowledge that a fetus is biologically human in origin. The debate is over the legal status that a born person has and a fetus doesn’t, which makes it a matter of law, not medicine.
It’s rather like the difference between insanity and mental illness. Mental illness is a medical condition, and insanity is a legal issue only. Insanity has no medical meaning, because whether or not a person comprehends the illegality of an action, or the consequences of it, is a matter of law, not of medicine. The line between law and medicine isn’t so bright as you might like it to be.
JT, do the cited experts give what process they used to determine that life begins at conception? I mean, sperm cells are alive in the same vague way that a fertilized ovum sans womb is. And I bet that it would be damn hard to look at a skin cell, a fertilized egg, and a cancer cell, and come up with a non-convoluted biological definition of human personhood that didn’t include one of the other two.
Chromosome count? Skin cell.
Can become human? Yank the DNA out of a skin cell, stitch it into an egg cell, implant the cell in a womb.
Distinct DNA from host? Cancer.
Can grow organs? Cancer. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981002a.html . And ew.
Of course, debates over when a human person is distinguishable from funny lumps of molecules are insoluable, because we have no hard-and-fast definition of personhood. They also do not address the fact that holding a woman legally responsible for her pregnancy opens veritable 55-gallon buckets of worms. I mean, if a fetus is a person with all the rights and wossname thereof, would that not entail at least cursory investigation into every miscarriage? Would you hold a woman who has sex, gets unknowingly pregnant, and ends up accidentally killing her zygote, is she charged with negligent homicide? Child abuse? Do you invade countries that permit abortion for human rights abuses?
And to the question asked of me way back when:
Yeah. There’s a moral distinction. Killing a baby will get the cops after me. Killing a skin cell will not.
There was a reason I asked for the moral difference to be specified.
Perhaps, but for the last time, that was not the claim which I was adddressing. You explicitly said that a fetus is not a human being. That is what you said, and that is the claim which I was addressing. It was is a scientific claim, and a medical claim – and as such, deserves should be addressed by scientists and leading physicians, rather than law school graduates.
Look, it’s obvious that you put your foot in your mouth by saing “A fetus is not a human being.” Because the wealth of medical testimony says otherwise, you are now shifting the issue to legal matters. We can discuss legal matters, and have been doing so, but don’t pretend that your scientific blunder is something that lawyers should resolve.
The distinction between fetus and human being is not necessarily a medical one.
No matter how many doctors you cite, the status of being a person is legally determined, not medically determined, so my foot is far, far from my mouth.
Let me explain - at least try to, through my wife’s personal history…
1986 - My wife is pregnant…her body naturally aborts first fetus.
1987 - My wife is pregnant again, carries fetus to term and our first son is born in 1988. Labor was extremely difficult, baby was transverse (not face down first, but leg, arm and head sideways!) and wife was pretty jacked up - it didn’t help being at a hospital with interns.
1990 - My wife is pregnant…her body naturally aborts third fetus during an emergency doctor’s visit.
1992 - My wife is has a tubal pregnancy…during eighth week (and in extreme pain) has surgery to remove the fetus and tubes on left side. Doctor says that chances of getting pregnant again are slim to none, but at least my wife is alive. We both cried for days and my four year old did too.
1995 - Wife got pregnant again! Had gestational diabetes during pregnancy and had a natural abortion of a twin in the early stages of pregnancy. Other fetus went to term and our second son was born healthy in 1996.
1998 - Possible pregnancy and natural abortion, it happened within a 6 week period.
2001 - Pregnant again! Wife takes precautions for gestational diabetes again, but there were no complications and healthy baby boy #3 was born in Oct. 2001.
Ok, out of 8 pregnancies, 3 resulted in live births, 4 were naturally aborted (by whatever causes that we have no idea about), and 1 by doctor assisted abortion (tubal ligation) to save the life of my wife. My wife was in danger twice, with our first son, and with the tubal pregnancy. Had she died during the first son’s birth, then it would be me and my 15 year old son calling ourselves a “family”. The same result would have happened should she have TRIED to carry a tubal pregnancy to term and both wife and fetus would have suffered greatly in the process.
As a catholic family, I believe that a life begins at conception, a definitive event during a pregnancy; but I also believe that one life cannot supercede itself plus another when their collective lives are at stake PLUS the lives of two subsequent siblings. I pray that we have made the right decision in the eyes of God, for it was not a decision of financial or convienience, but a life and death decision that I wish no woman (or couple) will have to make. I have a complete family with my wife of 17 years, and my three sons; 15, 6, 1.5 years. Not what we planned, but we are greatful for what we have. I pray for the souls of the other 5, that they may be comforted in the hands of God, for we never got the chance to know them.
Does it make logical sense to kill one person to save another? My answer to this is no, but does it make even more sense to have have two lives lost for the sake of keeping one in utero for a few extra months in distress and rupturing the mothers internal organs and bleed to death? I’m against abortion as well, so I AM a hypocritical when I say this; Abortion should be illegal except when the mother’s life is legitimately in danger.
We do not relish the position that we are in with respect to our beliefs, but essentially one child gave their life so three others can live. For the one who gave his/her life so early, you are not forgotten…
Geez, Buttonjockey, I’m rabidly pro-choice, yet your post got me angry.
Thanks for your opinion on the debate at hand. Care to elaborate on why you think they shouldn’t be stopped, or is your statement sufficient for everyone to pack up and go home?
The pro-life position has exactly zero to do with the death penalty. Why bring it up ? There’s plenty of pro-lifers who are anti-capital punishment and vice versa. The two subjects are not necessarily linked.
If I knew someone who honestly, truly believed that abortions were completely and utterly wrong and that it was murder, but adopted the attitude of “well, I just won’t have one, but anyone else can”, I’d think they were hypocritical morons. Do you truly expect those who believe in that way to just shrug their shoulders and move on ? Would you do the same if someone was butchering 12 year old boys who had brown hair, just because they wanted to ? Would you shurg and say “well, I don’t believe that 12 year old boys with brown hair are ok to kill, so I just won’t do it… Hmmm, but I guess it’s ok for that person to do so, they obviously don’t believe the same as I do” ?
While I agree that the woman should have the right to choose, I haven’t seen one fundie posting in this thread, so who was this aimed at ?
What treatment are you talking about ? I truly hope you aren’t advocating what I think you’re advocating. Oh, and if you’re sick of the debate, how about just clicking that mouse and moving on to the next thread ?
Strawman. Not all pro-lifers support the death penalty – and even if they do, there’s a difference between executing a habitual murderer and taking an innocent life.
So if you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave?
Good grief. You have yet to demonstrate that abortions are anything like twinkies. Your analogy presumes that they are merely matters of personal preference, with no rooting in morality. In other words, it’s a circular argument.
Explain that one to Atheists for Life, then.
“Give the anti-choicers the abortion doctor treatment”? Sounds to me like you’ve run out of ways to defend your stance.
Oh, and if you’re sick of the debate, how about just clicking that mouse and moving on to the next thread ?