And just to pile on… 
I don’t think it’s a question is of whether the fetus is a living human being; it’s a question of whether the fetus/zygote/etc. is a person. A brain-dead adult human is certainly human, and may be alive (with sufficient medical assistance), but few would consider “pulling the plug” on this living human to be murder. Is a fertilized egg a person? If so, IUD’s, the Pill, etc., are murder. If the Pill is not murder, then when does the fetus become a person, so that killing it would be murder?
Gaudere:
I’m actually of the opinion that the government, at the moment, has this situation pretty much right, in terms of my belief structure.
The fetus becomes a person with rights against being harmed at viability - at the point at which the child, without extraordinary medical assistance, could survive, and at which time it shows intelligent reaction. This is generally regarded as about 22 to 25 weeks in most states, I believe.
Are there exceptions? Sure. When a mother’s life is in jeopardy, an argument could be made that even infanticide would be justifiable. (I can’t imagine, however, a medical circumstance where this would be the case.)
Those who disagree with me on viability will, no doubt, be able to point to exceptions that help their cause. What about this baby born after 20 weeks that lived and turned out fine?
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Many abortion opponents say that line is drawn when the little sperm enters the little egg. Many of us disagree.
With regard to my OP: I’m aware those of us on both sides of this debate strongly disagree, and I doubt much is going to change that. I was wondering if even abortion opponents find it curious that partial-birth abortion, which is apparently a very rarely done procedure, is getting so much play in the national discussion? And is it being introduced in a crass, cynical way, because it’s an admittedly gross procedure that would repulse anybody?
Gaudere:
I’ll concede the semantic point, but you don’t seem to be genuinely disagreeing with the thrust of my statement: the U.S. of A. recognizes that people have an inalienable right to life (which can, however, be deprived by due process of law). The key in all these matters…abortion, euthanasia, “pulling the plug,” etc…is not whether that right exists inalienably, but whether the subject falls under the definition of person for such protection.
Chaim Mattis Keller
CMK:
I wasn’t actually trying to enter the debate–there are others I’m more interested in participating. Just wanted to clarify the point.
-VM
Fair 'nuff, Chaim. I am wary of poor terminology, and saying that all living human beings have an inalienable right to life is fallacious. There is a certain amount of confusion between “human” used to refer to persons, and “human” used to refer to “a creature with human DNA”. Clearly, we cannot say a fetus does not have human DNA, and is therefore not human (what is it, a cat?); nor can we say it is not alive. Yet there are “living human beings” besides fetuses that we can end the life of without it being murder, since they are not considered persons. I was simply pointing out that “ending the life of a living human” is not murder; ending the life of a person is.
Playing Devil’s advocate without (honestly) having any particular adgenda.
Gaudere: By the logic of your argument the killing of any organism with human DNA but without “person” functioning would be ok. Would you then support the killing of profoundly mentally retarded individuals (who’s cognitive, personality and awareness may actually be lower than the “average” late-term fetus)?
Also, one thing that seemed fallacious about the pro-choice argument (and I am not particularly on either side) was that the argument is over a women’s right over her own body. It seems that the debate is over her right to destroy her fetus’ body…which has the sad misfortune to dwell within her own. Any comments?
I don’t approve of the killing of late-term (somewhat after 5 months or so) fetuses, aside from when the mother’s life is in danger, and if an early birth/caesarians would also be highly risky–I do accord more value to the life of the mother than the fetus, although if she wishes to take the risk and carry the child to term, that is her decision.
The fetus does not begin to become truly neurologically active until about the 5th month; before then, there are simple reflex actions possible from the nerve cells, but there is no cerebral cortex and no major central nervous actvity. I don’t think an adult in this condition would not a considered to be “functional” at all; I believe this is a completely “vegetative” state. I actually accord more value to a human fetus than a vegetative adult, since the fetus has the likely potential to become a person, which an adult with no cerebral cortex or major central nervous activity does not. It is not a decision to be made lightly, yet I do not consider “potential person” to be the same as “person”.
DIVEMASTER says:
This is your assertion, which I obviously disagree with. If you want to prove the truth of your own assertion, I promise not to run off, either. If you can’t, you are merely speculating about what they might or might not do, and I am certainly free to disagree with you – and I do. That does not mean the burden of proving the truth or falsity of your assertion becomes mine.
BOB COS says:
You have missed my point. I said that one issue leads directly to the other; that does not make them the same issue. If you feel I responded insufficiently to one, however, allow me to rectify it: I do not believe “abortion is murder” in all cases. I believe it is an indefensibly broad over-statement. Actually, my feelings are very similar to Milo’s, who set his out very cognizantly. Again, the problem with the debate, as I see it, is that if a pro-choice person says “abortion is not murder,” an anti-choice person then says “so you support the late-term aborting of perfectly healthy fetuses upon demand!” This does not necessarily follow. I do not believe “life begins at conception.” I do not believe that the “rights” of a zygote or early fetus should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman – that, in other words, the future of a potential person should be more highly valued than the present of a person who exists here and now. Again, you may legitimately feel that the exercise of power over the persons of women is right and proper because “abortion is, in all cases, murder.” That does not, however, change the fact that exercising power is precisely what is occurring. Recognizing the latter does not mean I am ignoring the former.
Please point out the “logical flaw” in the “pro-choice argument.” I do not believe life begins at conception. I do not believe first-trimester pregnancies are worthy of governmental protection over the wishes of the pregnant woman. I believe a woman should have every right to terminate an early pregancy if she so chooses. Where is the logical flaw in that?
I strongly disagree with this. We do not Federally fund every elective procedure that human beings may choose to undertake. There is a vast difference between believing that the right to abortion (up to the point of viability) should not be infringed and believing that the government is then required, in all cases, to pay for abortions.
CMKELLER quotes me as saying “Frankly, I’m even less interested in who started calling whom what first than I am in what terms we agree to use.” and replies:
This is such a childish response as to hardly merit reply. I said, and say ‘it doesn’t matter who said what first, so long as we know what we’re talking about’ to which you reply ‘YOU said it first!’ What does it matter in the context of the larger debate? It obviously doesn’t. But feel free to continue beating this dead and pointless horse if you want, just don’t expect me to assist you.
Yes and no. There can be no question, I think, that the effect of making something (anything) illegal is to restrain someone’s personal decision to do the thing that is now illegal. Therefore, whatever the intent behind the law may be, the effect (or one of them) is the exercise of power (or control) over the people who otherwise would do the act now made illegal. In the case of abortion rights, that group is obviously made up of women and only women. It is not surprising, to me at least, that many abortion rights groups see the issue in terms of the obvious – intended or not – effect of controlling a significant and important aspect of a woman’s personal freedom – her right to control her own body. Whether or not that exercise of power is justifiable takes us right back to the ultimate issue of what rights, if any, a fetus should enjoy, and when. Notice that I am not really disagreeing with you, but merely attempting again to clarify why I think these two issues are intertwined in the minds of many.
Smartass asked:
To which CMKELLER responded:
This merely begs the question of when a fetus becomes “a living human being,” which is really what Smartass was asking when he (she?) asked when those rights attach. IMO (and just my O), that time should be when the fetus is viable outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention (as Milo said). But that’s just my “O” and I know many may disagree with it – which is why I don’t presume to try to legalize my beliefs and impose them upon others.
Smartass correctly said “Citizenship is bestowed at birth,” to which CMKeller asked:
The child of American citizens is an American because his or her parents are Americans. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of when “citizenship” – or any other “rights” is bestowed. You may argue that “rights” should attach before birth – and I frankly would not argue with you. But I do not thing “rights” should be bestowed upon a fertilized egg that came into being yesterday morning. Obviously, there’s a lot of play between these two extremes, which is why deciding when to bestow rights – when a “fetus” becomes a “child” is such a thorny issue.
Smartass asked:
To which CMKELLER replied:
Of course it is distinguishable, precisely because the issue of abortion, ranging from fertilized egg to full-term baby, due tomorrow, is not as cut-and-dried as you appear to want to paint it. The law, in many cases, WILL consider the death of a pregnant woman carrying a full-term or near full-term baby to be a double homicide. The law will rarely (never, as far as I know) consider the death of a newly pregnant woman to be a double homicide. Why? Because lawyers (who enforce the law) recognize the reality that the extremists on BOTH sides of the debate refuse to acknowledge – namely, that in the former case you really are dealing with the deaths of two people, which in the latter case you really are not.
But that is an enormous “if” and, in the final analysis, the heart of the debate. Moreover, in the case of legal abortions, you endanger the life of the fetus only; illegal abortions endanger the life of both the mother AND the fetus.
Yes, that’s precisely what happened. But no one has ever been able to tell me why forcing that woman to have a child she did not want, as opposed to allowing her to elect to have a safe, early abortion, was the correct result. Doing so elevates the rights of the potential person over the rights of the person who exists here and now; that, again, is what I strongly disagree with.
AVALONGOD says:
My comment is that this appears “fallacious” because it is built upon the assumption that the fetus is independent from the mother from the point of conception, and has rights independent from the mother from that point as well. I disagree. If you view a zygote as part and parcel of the person carrying it, then telling that person that she may not remove the zygote is obviously interfering with a woman’s right over her own body. The fact that a woman who does not want to be pregnant ends up being pregnant is not a “misfortune” to the fertilized egg that may or may not someday become a child; it is a misfortune for the woman.
Jodih:
I would have to politely disagree with some of your last points there. My understanding is that indeed the zygote/fetus is a distinct biological entity from the mother. Different DNA (at least 50% different), potentially different blood type, etc. In fact, during the process of pregnancy, the mother’s and child’s bodies are carefully maintained as distinct entities. No blood is exchanged between the two.
whether that translates into rights to the fetus is the debatable issue. But suggesting that the fetus’ and mother’s bodies are one in the same is scientifically preposterous.
Actually, Gaudere and Milo pretty much said what I was going to say. Pre-viability, I view a fetus as a potential human being ( or person ). While I am pro choice, I think that the law should mandate that a post sixth month pregnant woman with a fully viable fetus who wants an abortion should insted have a free c-section, with the infant being taken immediately and offered for adoption. All medical costs would be paid, the woman should be sedated and never see the baby. To her, it would have the same effect as an abortion, and a child would be available for one of the many loving couples who despertly want to adopt.
No offense Wierddave but that is a HIDEOUS plan. Actually not bad on the surface, but once you scratch down below.
The problem with it is all the negative consequences of premature birth…linked with low IQ, behaviour problems, eating and sleeping problems, respiratory problems. OF course the closer to 9 months, the fewer problems, and you could argue it is better than death, but STILL!!!
jodih:
Sure, that’s the effect either way. But the choice/life terminology that is being thrown around is, as far as I’ve been able to tell from its use in the mass media and each side’s propoganda, meant to address and (when used by the opposition) impugn the motivations of the side.
Well, I could, I suppose, argue that not all of the doctors who perform abortions and make money off of them are women. So to some degree (although not the same degree or for the same reason as the pregnant women who wish to abort), there are men with a concrete interest in the issue. However, this is really a red herring.
Of course it’s not so cut-and-dried. However, wherever you seek to draw the line, it’s the same line when asking, “Is abortion a single murder?” and “Is murdering a pregnant woman a double murder?”. If you draw the line at conception, three weeks, five months, or birth, the answers to those two questions are the same.
You raise good issues here, but they don’t negate the points I made in response to the statements made by “Smartass”, which is that laws prohibiting abortion do have an effect on how many abortions get performed. Smartass was questioning how effective such laws could be.
Chaim Mattis Keller
This is very much not the case–the fetal and maternal circulatory systems are connected.
They have to be, because the fetal lungs don’t work. Since the fetal lungs don’t inflate until after birth, pressure is high, and the blood bypasses them via a hole between the atria called the foramen ovale. The fetus exchanges blood with the mother through the umbilical vasculature.
Dr. J
DrJ.
Nope, no blood is exchanged. Better reread those medical texts. The placenta carefully filters out nutrients from the mothers blood and places them in the baby’s blood without ever exchanging them. This is why the mother;s immune system doesn’t destroy the baby like a big parasite. This is also why a mother can have HIV, CMV, herpes, etc…but not transmit them so long as she has a Caesarian section.
Actually cmkeller, I think only one of the parents has to be a citizen for the child to be a citizen until the child is made a citizen of another country. I could be wrong, but that’s what i always thought.
As for abortion, I think that everylife, in the womb or out, is entitled to the right of life. Just my opinion. Maybe the two sides will be able to reach common grounds, with all this technology.
from Jodih
Now, you and I both know one can’t prove a negative. That would go something like this:
“Okay, here is a list of all the injunctions NARAL never filed:”
.
.
.
.
.
.
hmmm; see the problem?
In the case where one person (me) believes a certain activity (the political wing of the pro-abortion-rights movement ever coming down against a mother’s legal right to choose abortion, regardless of circumstance) never occurs, it is up to someone who thinks differently (you) to provide an example to prove me wrong.
Actually, I’m making it easy for you. All you have to do is provide one valid example. Then, and only then, will I will retract my contention of ‘never’ and change it to ‘rarely.’ Not that that really changes the debate much.
To do it your way, I would have to show that for every abortion, NARAL et al. didn’t intervene. Well, I guess that isn’t as difficult as it seems. OK, I give you 1.2 million examples of legal abortion not being challenged by abortion-rights groups.
You know, you’re right. Embryology was never my strong suit. 
Even so, there is exchange of oxygen, nutrients, certain drugs, etc. across the placenta, so I wouldn’t say that the systems don’t interact at all. Doesn’t make me any less wrong or you any less right, though.
Dr. J (who jettisoned his brain after yesterday’s Board Exam)
My point is that, in a sense, pro-life is anti-life.
What’s unsupported about it? Can’t you do math? Human beings are wrecking the Earth’s environment. The rate at which this is happening is a function of our numbers.
A fetus is an innocent what? Aren’t cattle, pigs, chickens, fish, etc. innocent? Not to mention all the species that are endangered. I don’t go in much for the concept of collective guilt, but fetuses do belong to a species that is guilty of threatening Life on the only planet where it is known to exist. It is not neccessary at this time to make the hard choice between protecting the environment and protecting all forms of intelligent life, but non-intelligent, non-endangered life in certainly expendable. And fetuses do not constitute intelligent life.
Well, yeah. It sure beats, “Fuck the environment, have as many kids as you can”.
Although I prefer, “Save the envoronment, don’t have more than 2 kids”.
That means if you get pregnant 4 times, you have 2 kids and two abortions. If you have 4 kids then my family won’t be able to have any, and that’s not fair.
DIVEMASTER – The fact that the assertion you make is couched in terms of something “never” occuring does not serve to make it my obligation to prove the validity of your assertion. It remains your obligation, if you choose to undertake it. That’s the difference between “never” and “never to your knowledge.” And it’s just as impossible for me to prove what they WOULD do (hypothetically) as it is for you to prove what they would NOT do (hypothetically). Both or equally unprovable but if YOU want to raise a challenge of proof, I may then return it to you, since yours was the first assertion. In other words, if you think proof is appropriate, then prove your point. If I make the affirmative assertion “I have never killed anyone” and I believe proving that is germaine to a discussion, then I have the obligation to prove it; it is not incumbent upon anyone else to prove the opposite, simply because I made the mistake of couching my assertion in terms that are, essentially, unprovable.
Moreover, and more to the point, there is a huge difference between filing a brief in opposition to a position you generally are in favor of, and failing to file a brief in support of that position. In other words, if a woman were legally claiming a right to abort a healthy very late-term fetus, I do not believe NARAL or Emily’s List would write briefs in SUPPORT of her. That does not mean they would then be required to file briefs in OPPOSITION to her.
DrJ:
Don’t worry, if I had $1 for every time I said something that later turned out to be false, I would be too busy managing my money market accounts to post here.