Wow. Someone needs a reading comprension primer…please find where I said or implied that a fetus should have the exact same rights an adult?
Are YOU suggesting that if an organism doesn’t have the right to “drive, vote, work, drink, buy cigarettes” …then its right to life is less than that of an ADULT woman?
I’ll pass that on to my 3 year old daughter. :rolleyes:
I’ll walk through this again with you.
YOU essentially said: How dare the morality police impose a morality on the rest of us.
I said: That line of thinking is naive or dishonest…our government “imposes” a moral view on the citizens all the frickin time. I supplied two examples to support that statement (of course there are countless other examples)
I ALSO said that arguing whose “rights” trump whose DOES make sense as an argument. We do it all the time in society…thats why we have courts (and legislatures). If someone argues that a woman’s “right” to have an abortion trumps the “right” of an embryo/fetus to have life…at least the argument (although I would disagree with it) is a similar kind of argument to other kinds of “rights” issues.
Admittedly, the anti-abortion people are nuts. But just for the sake of argument, look at it from their point of view for a second. When they refer to abortion as “genocide”, they aren’t kidding. That use of the word is inaccurate, but they really do view abortion as a crime akin to the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, and so on.
As I said, this is plainly nuts. But if you accept that basic premise, then the actions of these protestors are not only morally acceptable, they’re a moral imperative. If I thought my own government were sanctioning genocide, or a crime akin to it, I would feel compelled to use every non-violent means at my disposal to stop it - including photographs intended to shock and horrify.
My point here isn’t that what the anti-choicers are doing is in any way good - it is, however, something that can be understood, and I believe it’s important to understand one’s political opponents.
Y’know, I don’t think all of them are nuts. I think the ones we see with the signs, the ones that shoot doctors and blow up clinics; those people are nuts. I think the majority of people who are against abortion, for whatever reason, are fairly normal. I just wish they could see the difference between “I don’t like it, and I’m not going to do it.” and “I don’t like it, and I’m not going to let you do it.”
On-topic, though, I don’t have a problem with the pro-life people (the majority, anyway). However, there’s a time and a place for protests. But their posters and billboards aren’t gonna stop me from eating Mexican food.
On an individual basis, most anti-abortion people strike me as decent, moral people. But that doesn’t excuse the wackjobs that decide to kill doctors.
Allow me to quote George Carlin:
“They’re not pro-life. They’re killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? ‘We’ll do everything we can to save a fetus, but if it grows up to become a doctor, we just might have to kill it’?”
In short, they should hold their views to themselves, and let others make the decisions that affect each individual. I’ll admit that too many abortions are probably performed on a daily basis in the US. I’ll also admit that none of them are any of my business.
No, you’re saying that a clump of cells has rights. As long as it depends on a host body, it certainly has NO rights. Therefore we as a society remain (and probably always will remain) pro-CHOICE.
Actually, “awareness” has played only a small role (if that) in the relevant court decisions – a much smaller role than viability, certainly.
However, even if the courts were unwaveringly consistent in their guarantees of abortion rights (they aren’t), and even if fetal cognizance was the overriding factor in their decisions (it isn’t), it really wouldn’t change the discussion, only the context in which it occurred.
And an embryo isn’t a person. You’re the one trying to say that awareness shouldn’t matter. shrug A tumor isn’t aware either. It has its own (human) DNA and grows in much the same manner as a fetus. It depends on its host for continued survival. It’s alive! Killing it is murder!
Muad’Dib, a lot of those fertilized eggs don’t even make it to the uterus, anyways, so a fertilized egg is NOT a pregnancy. Any doctor will tell you that pregnancy doesn’t occur until implantation in the uterus. (And if it implants somewhere else, then an abortion is a medical necessity).
When it’s growing in YOUR uterus, then you have a right to do whatever with it. When it’s in MY uterus, and MY body, you have no say. Period. Personally, I feel that after a certain point in pregnancy, abortion should ONLY be used in extreme emergencies. But in the first trimester? We’re talking about something that’s not conscious, or sentient, or able to exist on its own. It’s a potential human, yes. But it’s not something that should have MORE rights than the woman.
Either that or stillborns. Which is really heinous, when you think about it-where the hell are they getting these goddamn photos? Do they barge into hospitals and take pictures of women who’ve just had a miscarriage or given birth to a dead baby? Jesus Christ.
No. I’m saying that it’s not obvious that it should. I actually consider it to be extremely important, but pro-lifers tend not to value the sames things as me.
Sorry, I forgot to post what I actually wanted to say.
The reason it’s a dodge to equate a tumor with a fetus as you did is because to do so ignores the pro-lifers’ main assumption: that potential or future cognizance (or human life, if you prefer) should be protected in the same way as fully realized cognizance.
Thank you, I appreciate your explaining that. I don’t agree with it, but I understand your reasoning better.
So, back to the awareness question, then, would you say that I misunderstood Justice Blackmun’s interpretation? As it seems he’s basing “personhood” on clinical data as to when awareness takes place.
IUDs and the pill were mentioned earlier as forms of birth control. What worries me is some people who believe life begins at fertilization consider those forms of birth control to be abortion because they can (in the case of the pill) or do (as in the IUD) prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb. As was Pitted recently, some pharmacists are now refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill or dispense the morning after pill on those very grounds.
Someone quoted Muad Dib referring to “bad choices” earlier. I wonder. Would my friend making love to her husband be a “bad choice”? As I said, they have chosen not to have children for medical reasons. Since any act which places the penis in or, reportedly, near the vagina can result in pregnancy and pre-ejaculate does contain sperm, should she and her husband live celibately or refrain from that form of sex? That’s a lot to ask of a couple who are married and very much in love and I certainly won’t ask it of them, although I do ask that they spare me the details. I’ve never planned on having kids. Should I, therefore, be celibate for the rest of my life or, failing that, get real good at giving blow jobs? If so, I have one suggestion for anyone who thinks that: you go first.
Well we could argue till the cows come home about when a z/e/f “gets rights”, but it’s been done a tad on the boards. (and of course…“clumps of cells” don’t get electively aborted, embryos and fetuses do)
You might wish to pass the note about “Therefore we as a society remain (and probably always will remain) pro-CHOICE.” along to the NARAL and NOW gang who apparently seem dumb enough to disagree with you…they seem to be getting their panties in a wad over a ficticious possible sea change in the debate. Irony…heh.
I noticed that you punted on the “how dare the gubmint enforce a morality” point that I was originally responding to.
Blackmun doesn’t seem to consider awareness at all, let alone base his opinion on it. He bases his definition of “personhood” on the uses of the word “person” in the Constitution and on the way in which fetuses (feti?) are normally considered within the law. When considering the effect of prenatal development, viability is the overriding concern.
Just because they are living off the mother does not mean that they are not seperate and distinct. Would you not consider a parasite, such as tape worm or the bacteria in your gut, as seperate and distinct creatures even though they fully depend on a human host for survival?
