If they figure out the connection to the aching pinky, yeah, they can stop it.
It’s not up to me to decide for someone else what’s too big a sacrifice. To Van Cliburn, that aching pinky might be a huge deal. To me, well I have aching pinkies all the time… :eek:
It’s not that murky to me. Let’s say I lay dying due to lack of blood and it turns out that I have an extremly rare blood type shared by only a handfull of people in the world.
As it happens, my neighbor has this rare type of blood, and he is the only one with the capability of saving my life.
Is my neighbor legally required to give up his blood to me? Morally, you can argue that he is. But should he be forced under penalty of law to give it up?
What if due to a drunken prank by a powerful demigod, we both wake up one morning to see that he IS already hooked up to a machine which is transfusing the blood into me. And what if he only has to remain hooked up to it for one more hour to allow me to live for a further year?
What if the drunken prank by the powerful demigod was a direct result of him getting into a drunken game of poker with that demigod?
It doesn’t matter what I think of the sacrifice. What matters is what the person who has to make the sacrifice thinks.
A fetus is definitely “alive”. It’s definitely “human”, (in that it is human, by species).
But a “person?” I would say potential person, but not an actual person.
The reason why I get so fired up is that it frightens me that people want so much control over MY body. Because I really do fear not being able to have control. If I were raped, for example, I would have to take the morning after pill, and if that didn’t work, I’d have to have an abortion. I’m on meds that can’t be stopped cold turkey, and would probably harm a fetus. Someday, if I PLAN to have a child, I can take steps with my doctor beforehand to switch to something else, and worry about it then. But an accidental pregnancy would be disaster. I can’t just quit taking my meds-the withdrawal is horrible, plus the increased hormonal moodswings of pregnancy might land me in the loony bin. But if I kept taking them, I’d probably harm the fetus. So it wouldn’t be right for me to continue a pregancy like that.
And then people like Muad’Dib come in, and just calmly talk about taking away my right to have control over my life. And making abortion illegal makes things a hell of a lot tougher for women. Again, I believe that abortion and birth control were illegal in communist Roumania to the point that MISCARRIAGES were investigated. And Muad’Dib, if he had his way, says he probably wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Well, you know what? I do. That scares the hell out of me. The way we’re seeing attempts by some segments of the religious right to ban sex ed, AND contraception. The way pharmacists are getting publicity when they refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. That my reproductive freedom is at risk.
This isn’t some hypothetical-it really happens. There have been women who had to go through hell to get abortions, even when they’re legal. Even for things like ectopic pregnancies (a long time ago, I read an article in some woman’s magazine about someone who was refused one at the only hospital in the area her insurance covered-because they were Catholic. Even though it was a tubal pregnancy, and wasn’t viable. She had to go a great distance to find a way to have an emergency abortion.)
So for some of us, this is a very personal, and very real possibility. And it pisses me off that many of the same people who say women should be forced to give birth are also screaming about social welfare-saying they should have control over their own money, not the government. So it’s okay for the government to have control over my own BODY, and force me to support someone with it, but not for the government to collect taxes and support people?
It’s just frightening.
Sorry, I didn’t see this until after I posted. The comparison is ridiculous. Pregnancy is a LOT harder on the body than a “minor aching.” Let’s see:
gestational diabetes
bone loss
dental disease
pre-eclampsia
hemorhaging
severe mood swings
post-partum depression
post-partum psychosis (which is what lead Andrea Yates to kill her kids)
varicose veins
And a whole list of other problems. Some of these can be FATAL. Women still die of childbirth in this day and age.
What if, due to the drunken prank of this demigod, I woke up with a man already in the process of having sex with me without my consent? The drunken demigod has assured this man that my magical vagina dew will enable him to live to a ripe old age and die peacefully in his sleep without ever knowing pain . If he doesn’t have sex with me, he will die tomorrow. Should I just go ahead and let him finish since it was already started? Should I be forced by my government to have sex with him? I mean, it’s not going to cause me anymore than some minor and fleeting discomfort…
::and the sound of the dueling banjoes of hyperbole starts in the background::
Umm, I believe you’ve missed the point entirely. I’m not even REMOTELY trying to claim that actual pregnancy is in any way minor. Nor am I pro-life (or anti-choice). I’m just trying to explore an interesting question-space, and, by doing so, illustrate the extent to which I find the entire topic to be full of troubling gray areas…
There are three basic threads of pro-legal-abortion argument being put forth in this thread, as I see it:
(1) Making abortions illegal causes more problems than it solves (I agree with this)
(2) A fetus is not at all a human being, and thus irrelevant (I generally disagree with this… although I don’t think a fetus is a human being, I also don’t think it’s “not at all” a human being or “irrelevant”. Another gray area.)
(3) Given that a fetus (regardless of its humanity or not) is being kept alive via some level of sacrifice on the mother’s part, the mother has an absolute right to cut off that sacrifice at any time for any reason
It’s argument (3) that I’m trying to explore here. Thus we end up with wacky hypotheticals like the ones that FaerieBeth is (not without justification) making fun of.
But seriously… most of us would agree that if I have a rare blood type, I’m under no obligation to voluntarily donate it to save someone’s life. But what if a sick baby’s father, driven mad by grief, kidnaps me and begins a transfusion, and I regain consciousness in the middle of it. Can I, uhh, abort the transfusion? Can I yank the needle out of the baby without worrying about whether it’s a needle designed for yanking? What if only 30 more seconds of blood will allow the baby to survive forever? What if I agreed to the transfusion, then change my mind partway through? What if I agreed to the transfusion while drunk but then changed my mind partway through?
(And please don’t think that if you answer anything other than “you have an absolute right to total control over every part of your body at all times”, I’m suddenly going to say “a-HA! Now you must admit that abortion is MURDER! Or else you’re a HYPOCRITE! I GOT YOU!!!” Which is not at all what I’m probing towards here…)
Another related topic is of conjoined twins… Does an adult conjoined twin have the right to request separation surgery if it is unlikely to harm him/her, but is far more hazardous for his/her sibling? What about parents of conjoined babies?
[QUOTE=Jenaroph]
Comparing the death of an actual child to the spontaneous end of a pregnancy is comparing apples and oranges. Kids don’t usually drop dead for no reason, so investigating their deaths is reasonable. The percentages I keep reading are that about 10% of pregnancies end in the first trimester. My mother had one. My sister had one. They’re the only two in my immediate family who’ve ever been pregnant. If you count unimplanted fertilized eggs, it may be as high as 50%. MOST women will have a miscarriage at some point in their lives. And some 1% of women are chronic miscarriers. So how far do you take an investigation of a couple who, by your definition, keeps losing child after child through no fault of their own? And again, HOW do you determine whether the loss of a pregnancy is through miscarriage or abortion? The most definitive way to tell would be a pelvic exam. I’m seriously asking about practicalities here. How much government interest is too invasive?
[.quote]
I doubt that such investigations would be very common. Remember that it is sanctified in law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and an investigation is not begun unless there appears to be something fishy.
We imprison people who have not yet commited crimes all of the time. If it is believed that you will kill yourself you will be arrested and put in a hospital, unable to get out untill a doctor ok’s you. You can also be locked up if it is believed that you will kill another person. If it is believed that you will harras or or harm another person a restraining order can be filed against you. Also, if it is believed that parents will harm their children the children are taken away.
Frankly though, the idea of losking up a woman to prevent her from aborting a pregnancy makes me feel ill. I don not at all like it and presumably and hopefully it would be a very rare occurance, I just do not see how, if you accept that human rights begin at conception, it is avoidable.
I do not believe it is a potential life. I believe it is an actual life. Also, as I have stated before, it does not trump the life of the mother. If I believed that I would not support abortion to save a mothers life.
Yes, adoption, or foster care. Perhaps we should bring back orphanages if needed.
I don not understand what you mean by “by whom”.
It is not a shade of grey. By threatening a mothers life the fetus becomes the agressor and therefore its life becomes forfit. You cannot live at the expense of anothers right to life. It all stems from the same respect for human rights and is not an exception to any rule.
Hust as now, a doctor would make the decision.
J
ust as 150 years ago I would force the south to give up their slaves, despite there being many people who disagreed with it to satisfy my own view on the dignity of human life.
I ask you, what would not be a whim? When is it okay to force your ideas on another?
Again, I am not religious. This is not forcing people based on a whim or faith. That would something like saying that band X is the best band ever and trying to force others to agree. My views on abortion come from self reflection and debate, I look at the evidence and came to my conclusions, and by the nature of these conclusions they must be just as enforced as laws against theft or murder.
Considering that he’s publically stated he doesn’t care about anyone’s uterus I sincerely hope so. That is not the position of someone who values women’s lives.
I stumbled on this statistic today. I think it summarizes some of the points being made here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=571&e=6&u=/nm/20050407/hl_nm/un_health_dc_5
Making abortion illegal kills women.
Yes you are. You are forcing me to live in a country where abortion is legal. Just as the abolitionists were forced until the Civil War.
You are using two different meanings of “will never”. The tumor will never gain consciousness because it is incapable by its nature of doing so. Where as a baby, by its nature, will.
Read the example I gave earlier:
A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlums come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can’t eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So has the farmer lost anything of value then? Since the crop was destroyed, does that mean that the seeds never had any value? Should the vandals be prosecuted, since, according to you, they did not destroy anything of value?
Can’t you? You can buy seeds as snacks in most health-food stores.
But to address your analogy, if the farmer paid someone to destroy the seedlings, it’s a-okay. If he didn’t want the seedlings destroyed, a crime has been committed. I don’t see why this should be difficult to grasp.
Yes, all of this debate, discussion and intricate explanation, me trying to respond to every poster and their arguments, has only been me saying “Durrr, it’s obvious!”. :rolleyes:
Because I believe that egg to have a right to life.
Those that truly don’t want to should use birth control or, if that is too risky for them, give up sex.
You misunderstood what I meant when I said “I don’t care about your uterus”. I did not mean “I don’t care what happens to your uterus, the baby is most important”. I meant that the baby was the point of the conversation. I have no interest in regulating your body like we do with cars. I am interested in saving the babys life.
Ladies of the SDMB, I have a simple solution. Gentlemen (Muad Dib, this does not include you), you may not want to read the rest of this post. I intend to get a bit graphic.
Muad Dib, you have said that you believe that life should be protected from the moment of conception. You have also said that all miscarriages should be investigated to make sure they were not abortions and that forms of birth control which prevent implantation are abortifacients. A fertilized egg, a baby, which does not successfully implant in its mother’s womb would therefore be considered a miscarriage, possibly a deliberate one. The following therefore follows logically from these two positions. Each month while she is menstruating, each woman shall be required to collect all of her menstrual discharge and send it to the appropriate government agency where it shall be inspected to see if it contains a fertilized egg. Any woman who is using birth control which interferes with her menstrual circumstances shall be required to collect all vaginal discharges and send them to the same agency. This should actually catch more “murderers” to use Muad Dib’s phrase becase if a woman is not having monthly cycles, she does not have a hospitable environment for a fertilized egg to implant.
Actually, on a more serious note, Muad Dib, here’s something for you to consider given your position that anything that prevents implantation causes an abortion. Breastfeeding itself disrupts the menstrual cycle and, according to this website from the American Academy of Family Physicians, can serve as effective method of birth control until a woman’s monthly cycles return to normal. There are also several medical conditions, such as fibroids, cysts, etc. which make it difficult and potentially dangerous for a fertilized egg to implant.
You said this earlier:
As I said, I am using birth control and I’m comfortable with the small risk I’m taking. The thing is, if you look at that chart I supplied earlier, with the exception of male and female sterilization, the most effective methods of birth control all can in some circumstances prevent implantation, thus making them abortifcacients which you think should be illegal. Depo-Provera has the lowest failure rate at 0.3%, a rate which is even lower than female sterilization. I have now seen it listed as something which can prevent implantation, thus something which should be prohibited. The pill as used has the highest failure rate of 5%. If you switch to barrier methods which are intended to prevent sperm from getting to the egg to fertilize it, the lowest failure rate is for male condoms at 19%, nearly quadruple the rate for hormonal contraceptives. The lowest failure rates for barrier contraceptives used by women are 21% for the female condom, which can be dead hard to find in some places, or 20% for diaphrams and cervical caps which must be fitted by a doctor and the vaginal sponge which is no longer on the market. When you figure that the failure rate for “natural family planning”, which I gather means the rhythm method, is 25%, the alternatives you’re leaving us, while they may be better than nothing aren’t so by much.
Female sterilization, by the way, involves blocking the Fallopian tubes and is not easily reversible. Since it has a failure rate of 0.5%, obviously eggs do become fertilized despite this on rare occasions, although I have no idea how rare that is compared to a fertilized egg implanting in the body of a woman who’s using Depo-Provera. I suspect it’s somewhat more common. It would stand to reason, however, that if an attempt has made to block the woman’s Fallopian tubes, it would be more difficult for a fertilized egg to pass through the Fallopian tubes and implant thus making sterilization a method which prevents implantation, thus making it an abortifacient. Male sterilization, by the way, has the lowest failure rate at 0.15% but it, too isn’t considered reversible and a lot of men aren’t thrilled about the idea of doing it, even thought it’s a far less invasive procedure for men than its equivalent for women.
Yes, I have thought these things through. Many years ago, when a wonderful man I loved dearly proposed to me, before we started having sex, I looked into the forms of birth control which were available, discussed them, and discussed what would happen even if, despite taking appropriate precautions, I became pregnant. It was the sensible, logical thing to do.
You say you’ve given your position careful thought and I’m sure you have. You’re also taking your sister’s experience into consideration and your nephew whom you obviously love dearly and whom you are happy to have as part of your life. I do consider that a good thing. By the way, that man I mentioned in the last paragraph also had a sister who became pregnant out of wedlock who chose to keep her baby and who ultimately gave birth to a little girl whom he, too, loves dearly, or did the last time I talked to him, many years ago. The thing is, when you say you’re not sure of your position on rape or incest, when you say you’re not aware that IUDs (it stands for Intra-Uterine Device, by the way) prevent implantation or when you say that you’re against the pill because it prevents implantation, it shows to me that you haven’t thought about the things which I as a woman who can get pregnant have thought about. I have a serious mental illness – clinical depression. It has some genetic components and it appears to run in my family. I am morally obligated to take that into consideration when I think about bringing a child into the world. Rape is, thank God, unlikely. However, some very unlikely things have happened to me in my life. I don’t use birth control when I’m not sexually active, which means that, if I am raped at such a time, I am at risk of becoming pregnant. The aftereffects of rape, coupled with my history of clinical depression are why I would insist on emergency contraception if that ever happened, not to making dead sure I got good, solid psychological as well as medical treatment. You, however, as your position stands, would take that option away from me.
No, I probably won’t change your mind, but I at least wanted to try to explain to you why some us are reacting as we have been.
CJ
That’s not two different meanings of “will never.” In both cases (a tumor and an aborted fetus), the entity will never become sentient. The reasons for this lack of eventual sentience are irrelevant, since there will never be any rights to protect in the first place.
Yes, the farmer lost something of value to him. The harm in this example wasn’t to the seedlings, but to the farmer: his plans and his investments were destroyed. The farmer is an actual, real live human being with interests, hopes, fears, desires, an identity, etc. It is he, not the seedlings, that our laws against vandalism protect.
If the farmer doesn’t care about the destruction of the seedlings, then no harm has been done.
The problem with your analogy is that the farmer is analogous to the woman looking for an abortion, and the seedlings are analogous to the fertilized egg. For your analogy to be relevant, the vandals would have to be violating the rights of the seedling.
Daniel
Then you gestate it. You don’t get to tell me that I have to.
What kind of asshole would volunteer someone else for a dangerous job that will have definite and guaranteed ill effects on their health? An anti-choice ass like you?
I’m not giving up sex for the rest of my life because you think you have some business dictating what I do with my body.
Then you can go ahead and ‘save the baby’s life’ without my body. You don’t get to tell me that I have to use my body to save a fetus. You want it saved so badly? Do it your fucking self.
Muad’Dib, if you could, please give us your thoughts on forced organ donation, as has been brought up by myself and several other posters. If you responded to that point, I may have missed it.
Whatever the rights of a zygote/fetus, does a woman have an obligation to donate her body and its organs for the duration of the pregnancy, not to mention the delivery?
If so, do you support this system enough to include every other case where organ donation can save a life?
Incredibly difficult questions. Unlike the case of a pregnant woman or most other “organ borrowing” scenarios, conjoined twins basically have the same claim on the body. I don’t have any answers. Not even close.