I’m not talking about abuse of infants. I’m talking about abuse of fetuses still connected to their umbilical cords. That is the law I’m against. I seriously doubt there are enough cases of this to even make a statistic.
2 parts:
Because I don’t think such a thing happens
Its not ok either way, but there’s a difference between saying its not ok and making a law for it giving the precedent of granting it some kind of personhood as a backdoor way of attacking abortion
Believe me, I’ve been tempted.
Exactly - which is why we should go with the educated guess of physician determined viability, rather than literally taking out each fetus to see what happens. But that’s still based on the idea that if we DID take it out right now, someone who isn’t the mother could take care of it. That’s a good line, in my book.
'Bout as much chance as peace breaking out in the Middle East tonight.
Forgive me, I was under the impression that we were talking about the concept of prohibiting killing of children born alive, not fertilized eggs.
Other posters have asserted that until the umbilical cord is cut, no matter how far along the pregnancy is and no matter whether the child could survive with medical support, mother has the right to kill her.
As to the question you raise, however, I personally do believe the embryo is a person. We don’t say that a newborn child is a non-person with no right to live because she is physically very different from a 10-year-old or an 18-year-old; the neonatal period is a different stage of life from prepubescence or adolescence and to me the embryonic period is also just a stage of a human person’s development. If only that person is provided with what I believe all people are entitled to (nutrition, hydration, protection from the elements, decent medical care) the embryonic person will likely go on to the next stages of development and I think it is wrong to routinely kill those people.
On the other hand, many early pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (the number may still be one in four, I’m not sure). Given the uncertainty of the fertilized egg or embryo going on to the next stage, I can credit the argument that at these early stages the rights of the mother should prevail if she wishes to end the pregnancy.
It is often said that a fair compromise is one that leaves everyone a bit unhappy. That may be the hope for resolution of this issue–if indeed there is any hope.
A claim that degrades the word “person”, by creating a category of “person” that doesn’t have any of the qualifications for the term.
A compromise on this issue leaves women suicidal, or dead. And leaves the anti-abortion fanatics frothing with frustrated hate.
Oops, my blunder. I had misinterpreted it as using viability as an actual test of, well, viability. Expel the fetus, and if it lives, it’s a person. Yes, definitely, using a scientifically- and medically-tested boundary of viability is much more sensible. I apologize for mistaking your meaning.
Well, who knows? The horse might learn to sing…
I don’t think it matters. If I go to bed after a night of debauchery (I’m a dude, by the way), and wake up and someone has shrunk Don Johnson (against his wishes!) and stuck him inside my body (and hooked him up to my bodiliy functions such that if removed he will die), I have the right to evict him- it doesn’t matter that he didn’t have a choice. It’s my body, and if something is inside that I want out, I can get it out. End of story.
Now, given this situation, I certainly wouldn’t eject poor Mr. Johnson at least until it was clear that there was no way to safely separate us- and I might even choose to live with him. But it would be my choice- and it would be within my rights to give him the boot for any reason. My body, my decision on who and what is allowed to be or stay inside.
OK, same exact scenario, but with Philip Michael Thomas in place of Mr Johnson. Not so easy, huh?
Make that Carrot Top, and see how fast the pendulum swings the other way.
Read thread title wrong. :o Never mind.
Setting aside questions of esthetics vis=a=vis the individual claims of Don Johnson, you do realize your analogy is flawed in a material way? Or at least you forgot to mention that you knew perfectly well that if you had your night of debauchery there was a chance that Don Johnson would be shrunk and placed within your body.
However, even without that proviso, assuming that providing Don Johnson with internal space (not sure what space that would be but whatever) and access to plumbing for nine months would likely result in Don Johnson’s return to the outside world in reasonably good condition, and unlikely to affect your physical or mental health in any significant way, I’d say you don’t have the right to eject him early if that ejection means he is killed. If we have to balance one person’s right to avoid a temporary loss of bodily integrity against another person’s right to live at all, the right to life prevails in my view.
In your view. Others have a different view. You are attempting to use the power of law to compel us to behave according to your beliefs, in violation of our own beliefs.
This is the crisis.
That’s true.
And while I’m not one to analogize abortion with slavery, the comparison works insofar as the proponents of slavery could make exactly the same statement.
I can’t just shrug my shoulders and say, to each their own, if I have a sincere belief that it is wrong to routinely kill unborn humans (and I do. Believe me, it would be far more convenient for me to just agree with the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances). This isn’t a tomato-tomahto question.
I don’t think this matters at all. I hold that the right to bodily autonomy- to choose who and what gets to enter or stay in one’s body- is absolute. A woman can give permission to someone to enter or stay in her body, but she’s free to decide “time’s up” later- and if this person won’t or can’t leave, she has the right to evict them by force.
I strongly disagree- I’ll also note that you’re wrong about “unlikely to affect” physical or mental health (for pregnancy)- pregnancy raises the risk of injury, illness, and death for women by more than a trivial amount. I don’t think this matters with respect to the question, though- even if there was zero extra risk during pregnancy, a woman still has the right to decide at any time and for any reason that she no longer wants anyone else inside her.
And I have the equally sincere belief that it is just as wrong to take away the right to bodily autonomy. The difference between us? You want to use the power of the state to take away rights (the rights of women to make decisions about their body in certain circumstances), I don’t. Even if you think the unborn have a “right to life”, I don’t advocate the state taking away this right from anyone. People should be free to make this decision without state interference.
I’m not going to argue against your strawman.
I do not believe there is a danger of women torturing newborns with their cords uncut. I think it’s an offensive, stupid caricature of an important topic. I don’t think your conclusions are logical at all, and if you do, I don’t consider you knowledgeable enough to discuss this topic with.
Here’s a thought-- read about actual late term abortions; who has them, and when, and how, and why. Educate yourself on the real-world circumstances that arise when when are allowed (or denied) reproductive choices. The fact that you are talking about groups of women torturing newborns with panini presses proves you have nothing to contribute to this topic. This is an issue that actually affects people, people like me. It isn’t just a stupid thought exercise.
That’s true, it is one difference between us. And I have no reason to doubt that your belief is sincerely held.
But from my point of view using the power of the state to protect an unborn child from being killed is entirely appropriate, as it is with other laws against wrongful killing, whether or not someone would like to make that decision without state interference.
The panini press was not my idea, actually. It came from someone who is strongly pro-choice, so strongly that he or she stated that if a child survives abortion it would be OK to put her in a Panini press so long as that was done before the umbilical cord was cut. That poster has seemingly revised that position to an extent, but it’s what was posted and what I was responding to.
I do not intend to be disrespectful to anyone. I think comparing an unborn human child to a chicken egg and calling her a clump of cells is kind of silly, certainly begs the question and is perhaps disrespectful as well.
And I do obviously know that people are actually affected by this issue. As I’ve said before, I do my best to help women and families in crisis pregnancies, because I think that is my moral obligation. I’ve volunteered many hours and made substantial contributions. My hope is that no mothers or families will be forced to abort due to poverty, and frankly I wish that everyone with an opinion on the topic (mine or yours) would also work toward that goal.
Understanding that you don’t wish to hear from me further, whether that’s because you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is not as well informed as you are or because you have a closed mind on the question, I’ll just add that other people are affected by this issue as well–unborn children who are routinely killed.
The term “unborn children” is a non-sequitur.
You would be using the power of the state to take away people’s bodily autonomy in certain circumstances. You realize that, right? In most situations (in this country, at least) most people (all men, certainly) have total control over who and what goes and can stay in their bodies- but you want to use the state to say “no, in these situations, you women cannot be trusted to make choices about your body”.
To me, that is monstrous- close to slavery-level stuff. People simply must be allowed the right to make choices about their body, in all cases.
Whether or not it’s wrong to kill poor little mini-Don Johnson because I want him out, it absolutely must be my choice to make.