Well, it’s lousy policy, for one thing. No single person gets to say when “life” begins. What every single person does get to do is decide for themselves whether they’re willing to allow another being to utilize their body.
Why is it lousy policy - do you think there will ever be a time when science can say this is when life begins? Failing that, all you end up with is a bunch of different ideas of when that is, from a bunch of different people, usually based on religious views. I figure it’s nobodies business but the pregnant, so why can’t each one of them decide?
Well, if you mean that every single pregnant person gets to decide for themselves whether the thing in them is a “life”, that’s not really different from how it works now. What I’m saying is that even if science ever does decide when “life” begins, that shouldn’t preclude anyone’s right to say that this “life” doesn’t get to co-opt their body without their consent.
Ah! OK, I do agree with that. OTOH, if science says (pulling a number out of the air) that life begins at the fifth month, if a woman wants to abort after that hasn’t she consented to the co-opt by carrying it that long? I really think the “life” bit needs to be left out and abortion be viewed as any other optional procedure - if the patient wants it, the patient gets it. Whenever.
Ah, fair enough then, I misunderstood your argument.
In response to the “what about the fetus’ body” argument, I would counter that, as long as the fetus is in the womb, dependent on resources it draws from its mother’s body, then it is in fact a part of her body. Once the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, then we can talk about its rights as a distinct being.
I disagree. We can agree that an embryo or fetus has certain qualities that make it a person (and not a gummi bear, a salamander, or a turnip) without reaching any agreement about its rights or lack thereof.
We can agree that each of these is a person:
[ul]
[li]A 5-year-old[/li][li]A 17-year-old[/li][li]A convicted murderer, whose appeal to SCOTUS has been denied, on Death Row[/li][li]A 35-year-old woman in good health[/li][li]A 90-year-old man with Alzheimer’s disease.[/li][/ul]
We can also agree that these people don’t all have the same legal rights:
[ul]
[li]The 5-year-old can’t consent or agree to most things (sex, contracts, surgery, etc.)[/li][li]The 17-year-old, depending on where he/she lives, can get married and drive a car, but can’t join the military or buy alcoholic beverages[/li][li]The murderer on Death Row is considered to have forfeited any “right” to live by virtue of having been convicted and sentenced, and faces considerable restrictions on his freedom to travel, communicate, and socialize[/li][li]The 35-year-old woman is subject to few, if any, legal restrictions, assuming she’s not on parole or the subject of a restraining order[/li][li]The 90-year-old with cognitive issues can have his right to manage his finances, etc., revoked if he’s found to be incompetent[/li][/ul]
So, even if a fetus or embryo is human, it doesn’t follow that it automatically acquires any particular set of rights. We could just as easily say that a fetus or embryo has not yet acquired a right to live, just as we say that the convicted murderer has forfeited his right to live.
Full disclosure: I am strongly pro-choice, and I am of the opinion that as long as the fetus or embryo is dependent on the mother’s body for its sustenance, it has not yet acquired a right to life.
I was forced to pay for the invasion of Iraq.
I was forced to pay for extraconstitutional detention.
I was forced to pay for torture.
I was forced to pay for huge contract graft to Halliburton.
I was forced to pay for oil exploration but not solar power.
I was forced to pay for roads I will never use.
I was forced to pay for educating other people’s kids.
There’s a mind-boggling amount of tax-supported stuff that all kinds of people are forced to pay for in contravention of their desires or beliefs. What makes you so special that I have to do it and you don’t?
I don’t quite follow.
We both agree that we have to pay for things we either don’t use or don’t want to pay for whatever reason.
Since this is an aborton thread I mentioned abortion, feel free to open a thread to discuss other stuff.
I think Sailboat’s point is that we’re all forced to pay every day for things that offend our sense of right and wrong, so kwitcherbellyachin’.
Indeed.
But…isn’t the pit exactly the place for bellyachin’?
Erm…
I guess it depends on who’s doin’ the bellyachin’.
But that’s okay, we’ll call you “Hapless Defender of the Gummi Bears”, and continue to have abortions just to annoy you.
Finally, a place where I can state my honest opinion!
**IMHO, an abortion is a private matter between a woman, her doctor, and her God. It is nobody else’s business. **
Until all those anti-abortion protesters are willing *themselves *to provide the necessities (physical, emotional, and financial) for a child that a woman has painfully realized she is unable to provide for, especially if that child will be born disabled or with “special needs”, they need to STFU and MYOB.
I’d like to see anti-abortion crusaders do something productive with their time and energy, like volunteer at an orphanage. Worry about the children that are ALREADY HERE that need love and support.
That being said: I don’t think an abortion should be performed if the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, unless the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Every situation is different, and again nobody’s damn business.
Don’t they just do a section then?
I haven’t read this whole thread yet and realize this response was not timely and imagine that someone else has probably already responded, but I have to respond.
I’ve seen a lot of nasty shit on these boards, but this was amongst the nastiest.
Grow up, little boy.
Aji, I understand (I think) your feelings about an embryo or a fetus being a person, and wanting to protect that person. I think, though, that you are focused solely on that tiny person, and might be missing the point that Nzinga and DianaG are making, so I would like to ask you about what I believe is a comparable situation to try to illustrate the issue of owning one’s body.
Many years ago, there was a court case in California (I’ve mentioned this case in a previous thread, but unfortunately have never been able to dig up a cite, so best we treat it like a hypothethical for this purpose). A little girl needed a kidney transplant immediately. Her father was matched to be a donor, and was the only family member who would be a suitable donor. The father refused. The mother took him to court in an attempt to force him to donate a kidney. I remember reading the judge’s statement, and that it was very moving. He essentially said that it was terrible this man would not sacrifice in order to save his daughter’s life, but that the state has no right to intrude on his body. The case was lost and the child died.
I can’t imagine refusing to donate a kidney to my daughter, and I think that father was…well, I don’t know the whole story, but I think he was responsible for his daughter’s death. I can’t understand that he put himself first. BUT I ABSOLUTELY agree that the state has no right to force him to undergo a physical, medical ordeal in order to support the life of another human being. You are not required by law to run into a burning building to save a life, although many heroic people do. You are not required to donate your organs even after you are dead although many giving people do. You are not even required to give blood. The state simply will not violate your right to bodily intergrity against your will in order to save or produce or support another human being.
Does this make sense to you? That you can care for these tiny beings and still understand that a woman has a right to be free from being forced to be an incubator for that baby?
On the problems of birth control and difficulty of getting sterilisation procedures and so on: I had a procedure called Essure a couple of years ago, after some conversations with GP and gyno. Day surgery under sedation rather than overnight stay and general anaesthetic, no stitches, and I was back at work the next day. Not having children (and being in a relationship but not married at that stage), I did have both GP and gyno repeatedly asking me “are you <em>sure</em> about this?” (which I was, and still am), but there was no patting on the hand telling me to come back in a few years. Maybe it’s a matter of finding the right doc…
On a purely scitific level.
Kidney = Organ, part of the body, undisputably and solely the (giantic douchebag) guy’s property.
Fetus = Not an organ, not part of a woman’s body (unless you want to re-write biology). Definitely inside the woman’s body and drawing resources from her and causing discomfort (to say the least). I can completely understand the difficulty
This is why the analogy fails. If you find somebody peacfully living in your basement, using your water, electricity, cable, wi-fi you don’t kill the guy (I know it’s a so-so analogy)
Whatever my feelings about abortion, I only put the pictures to counter the claim that there wasn’t a body…because there is one.
We can debate what rights this body has, or its personhood or the mum’s rights over it…but that wasn’t my point.
You completely missed her point with the analogy. Completely.
But you don’t let him stay there, do you?
I think I get your point, and I get the pictures, too. They have reality to me, and I hear in your written voice a genuine protective instinct that comes from the heart.
I am hoping to offer you, not a replacement perspective, but an additional one. I don’t expect that it will change your mind (and I don’t come here to change other people’s minds so much as to expand my own). I feel hurt and saddened and generally pissed off that so much of the abortion debate focuses only on the fetus/baby/tissuepuffball or whatever rings true for the individual, and so little of it (comparitively speaking) on the right of already born, fully formed, human women.
There is a big not-seen-by-most here (here meaning our country, not these boards). The point I was trying to make (which I am asking you to consider) is that in NO other circumstances do we allow the state to force a human being to sacrifice the intergrity of control over his or her own body in order to save a life. But I’m thinking that there might be a better way to convey this idea to you.
Think of your heart’s reaction to the picture of the tiny, baby to be. Feel that compassion, that desire to save it, to protect it.
Can you picture a woman and find any compassion in your heart for her? Whatever works for you…a picture, someone woman you’ve know with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, find a real story on the internet, or use your imagination. I am asking you to see if you can feel for this woman the way you are able to feel for an unborn child.
Part of the tragedy I see in the lack of concern over the rights of women over their own bodies is THAT IT LEADS TO SO MANY FREAKIN’ UNWANTED PREGNANCIES. This culture that barely even considers that a woman’s body might not be just an incubator or sex toy fails to teach young women to honor and protect their own bodies, to OWN their bodies for themselves, alone. “Well, if I don’t have sex with him, he’ll think I’m a bitch or a tease or that I don’t love him.” “Well, I was stupid enough to come up to his room and have a few drinks, and if I say no, he might hurt me, so I’ll go along, but I went along, so it’s my fault…” We act like men need sex and women possess it, and men have to find ways to “get it” from women, and that whole messed up crap means, I believe, a whole lotta women are having sex that they don’t particularly want to have.
Anyway, as I said, I just want to see if any of this has any emotional meaning to you. If it doesn’t, that’s fine. I appreciate your honesty, especially in a forum that is mostly not in agreement with your feelings on the issue.
I wish you peace.
BTW, I was assuming you are a woman. Correct me if I’m wrong, please, 'cause that will be interesting information for me, about my own blind spots.