Which is the basis for my view that it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is a person or not for the general principles at stake. The only time I could see there being a point of concern is if the pregnant woman had entered into a valid contract to act as an incubator for the fetus (such as in a surrogate situation), and even then the personhood of the fetus isn’t relevant.
It does lead to interesting considerations as to what happens after the abortion, of course. If the fetus is a person, and the woman is simply evicting the fetus from the womb, and (in the very small percentage of cases where this happens) it is post viability, what happens next. It could also impact the type of procedure permitted, I assume.
In the first Baby M trial, the judge, who terminated biological mother Mary Beth Whitehead’s paternal rights and allowed Elizabeth Stern to adopt the baby, stated that the only clause in the surrogate contract that was illegal was that the natural father could force the surrogate mother to have an abortion if he so wished. Judge Harvey Sorkow stated that the right whether or not to have an abortion was solely the rights of the pregnant woman.
Word up to anti-abortion people: Bombing clinics and killing doctors is not pro-life in my book.
The first part is semantics and the second part is a bad analogy. The fetus has no choice about whether or not to “use another person’s body”. The rapist wasn’t conceived with his penis stuck inside a woman.
The question of “personhood” doesn’t come into play in my take on things. It is my opinion that so long as the pregnancy is taking place in a woman’s body…she, and only she, determines whether to continue the pregnancy or terminate it.
If she is killing a person…that is unfortunate, but in my opinion, she has a right to decide to terminate a pregnancy without even giving a reason.
It is her body.
As for the people who consider the fetus a full human…with a soul…well, the soul apparently gets a free pass into Heaven.
I am pro choice. What object to is those who believe they have the right to make the choice for you. If you do not believe in abortion don’t have one. But do not presume you have the rigf=ght to make life decisions for others.
Well, but are there shades and nuances here? I mean, suppose a woman and a foetus are having a few drinks together, maybe things get a little hot and heavy, and signals get misunderstood, and the foetus maybe wants things to go all the way to full term, and the woman isn’t quite ready yet… is that really, in your heart of hearts, the same as some sicko foetus lurking in the bushes for some woman to come by in the dead of night so he can forcibly overpower her and hold a knife to her throat while he implants himself in her uterus? Or is it all the same thing? And is it quite the same thing as fighting off a fully sentient adult knowing all along that he’s sure to die from your reasonable efforts to defend yourself?
Yes. And if you don’t believe in beating your wife then don’t beat her. But do not presume you have the rigf=ght to make life decisions for others.
The question of choice doesn’t come into it for me. There is a (potential) life at stake and in my opinion that trumps all.
Grabbed from the poll thread. This is why I don’t like the term anti-choice, because it can imply this type of meeting. I have no qualms about woman’s abilities to make decisions. I believe it is important that they get control over their own bodies. I believe it is more important to protect a potential life. Women’s rights and fetal concerns aren’t opposite. If you care about one doesn’t mean you are against the other. You just have different priorities.
While I’m generally pro-life in all things (against assisted suicide and the death penalty etc.) I also don’t think it is necessary in order to consider oneself pro-life in terms of abortion. After all pro-choice doesn’t mean that you believe that women should have choices in every scenario.
As I stated in the other thread, the terms people should use are pro abortion rights and anti abortion rights.
Pro choice is a vaguely positive term that doesn’t really mean anything. Anti-choice is just as ludicrous only it also serves to demonize the other side of the debate directly. Pro life doesn’t work because it assumes that everyone agrees that a fetus is life. It’s also way too vague. Pro abortion and anti abortion don’t work because anyone with a moral compass should think that abortions are negative events; therefore who would be for them and who wouldn’t be against them.
The debate is whether women should have the right to have an abortion and how extensive that right should be. People should not use loaded terms and the terms used should be as specific to the debate as possible.
I disagree. I think that’s irrelevant. For me, it’s a matter of pragmatism. Women will have abortions, be they legal or not, and I’d much rather they had them in the safety of a hospital or clinic, rather than in some back alley. Or worse, tried themselves with a coat-hanger.
“Person” or “Personhood” are legal terms of art. You’re just creating a new legal term of art which means the same thing, and which makes no sense since we already have a generally accepted term.
True. What I was talking about was a hypothetical legal situation where a fetus is legally considered a human being , but abortion is legal on a property rights concept. You should have been able to read in all the unspoken assumptions I was making!
In such a situation, given the emphasis on property rights, I can see a clause holding up which stated that the mother would, absent certain defined health situations, carry the pregnancy to term. It’s not the basis of my belief in abortion rights, and instead is me being so bored of having proof read a document 743 times that I am trying to remember One L Contract Law.
This is utterly ludicrous. You take the pro life term (which I agree is a stupid term) and decide to say it must apply to anything what-so-ever and not simply the abortion debate. Therefore, a person who claims to be pro life must be pro life on all issues: hunting, death penalty, etc. Why don’t you take this same approach and apply it to people who call themselves pro choice? A person calling themselves pro choice must be pro choice on every issue imaginable as well and not simply on the abortion debate. Do you not see how logically stupid your thought process is?
You did everything but coin the term. Your post would simply create two types of “Persons”-- those who can be killed w/o due process of law, and those that can. Let’s call them Persons A and Persons B.
Well one term, Pro Choice, would be a vague term that could mean basically anything. The other term, Pro Abortion Rights, actually carries some real meaning along with it. I tend to think people should speak plainly and directly.
