Most pro-choicers have it all wrong.

[Polycarp]

@JThunder

Actually, I’d say that those two rights are by no means in conflict. If the fetus has a right to life, then it is a human being that is distinct from the mother. Ergo, even if we grant that a woman has the right to control her own body, the fetus is not part of her personal anatomy.

I’ve been more than casually interested in the ethical implications of the “uterine replicator” which has played a significant part in several SF stories with a common setting by Lois McMaster Bujold. This is a technological device developed by a future civilization which supports a fetus outside a woman’s body until it arrives at term.

To me, there is nothing inherently contradictory in the propositions: “A fetus is a person, or a person in potentia, with rights to survive” and “A woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body.”

Under present circumstances, of course, the survival of a fetus, at least for the first two trimesters, depends on the woman’s willingness to host it. But that need not always be the case.

Would it, for example, be ethically wrong for a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy to be willing to have the baby transplanted into the (appropriately prepared) womb of a childless woman who wants a baby? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is medically possible now. Speak to the ethics and legality of it, please.

My own position is quite simple: once egg and sperm have united in a fertilized ovum and it has seated itself on the uterine wall, there exists the potential for something to develop into a human being. Whether it is one at the moment or not is immaterial. A newborn baby is likewise incapable of caring for itself and surviving without assistance – yet nobody deems it as “not human.”

However, while in my opinion that puts a moral obligation on the woman whose womb is hosting that fetus, it does not justify a legal requirement that she must do so. That is her own moral choice to make.

An analogy with faults that I’ve drawn in the past: Imagine a woman, an only child, whose widowered father is severely disabled. Most people would say that she has a moral obligation to take care of him, to ensure that he is fed, bathed, clothed, etc., and has as good a quality of life as is possible for him within her means. But a law requiring this of her would be decidedly beyond the scope of the “police power” and might arguably invoke the 13th Amendment.

She may feel herself called to sacrifice her own life choices to take care of him. But the legislature cannot require that sacrifice of her. To me there’s a difference there between “morally right” and “legally mandatable.”

Likewise, it must be her decision whether to carry a child to term. Advice is fine. Requirements by law are not.

[Stratocaster]

@Polycarp

Would it, for example, be ethically wrong for a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy to be willing to have the baby transplanted into the (appropriately prepared) womb of a childless woman who wants a baby? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is medically possible now. Speak to the ethics and legality of it, please.

I realize you’re not asking me specifically, but I don’t see anything unethical or anything that should be illegal about such a scenario. It’s analogous to an adoption, I would say.

My own position is quite simple: once egg and sperm have united in a fertilized ovum and it has seated itself on the uterine wall, there exists the potential for something to develop into a human being.

Well, not to be pedantic, but it is immediately a human being, by definition. Whether or not the state of “human beingness” it is currently in affords it the rights of a “person” may be a different matter for some.

Whether it is one at the moment or not is immaterial. A newborn baby is likewise incapable of caring for itself and surviving without assistance – yet nobody deems it as “not human.”

His ability to care for himself is indeed immaterial, unless one is in the camp that says even newborns are not necessarily deserving of a right to live.

An analogy with faults that I’ve drawn in the past: Imagine a woman, an only child, whose widowered father is severely disabled. Most people would say that she has a moral obligation to take care of him, to ensure that he is fed, bathed, clothed, etc., and has as good a quality of life as is possible for him within her means. But a law requiring this of her would be decidedly beyond the scope of the “police power” and might arguably invoke the 13th Amendment.

Does she have the right to act in a manner that will unavoidably and necessarily result in her father’s demise?

[Snag]

@Walloon

And, you know, unless you don’t mind being called “pro-abortion” or “pro-death”, don’t use terms like “anti-choice”. Unless you believe that abortion should be allowed for any reason up to the moment of birth, you’re “anti-choice” too.

Even if one does believe this, late term abortions tend to be more dangerous for the mother. I do believe it should be allowed although if a fetus has reached a stage where it is capable of surviving on its own or in an incubator, a woman could choose to deliver by caesarian and given up for adoption once it can survive on it’s own, especially if this is a safer procedure for her. For my part I see the dividing line between a child and a fetus being birth - that is when it can survive on it’s own outside the mothers body. I consider that if a fetus can survive incubation that this should be a choice, although this is not usually feasible at less than seven months. Of course this opens another can of worms – who will pay for the medical care of this unwanted premature baby?

Other than for medical reasons it is less likely that a woman would wait so long to have an abortion. In general it’s also easier emotionally for most woman to abort earlier than not. The rarity of such abortions speaks to the fact that most women are not willing to wait so long making the point more of an anomaly in practical terms.

On the other hand, the Bush administration refuses to release a morning after pill that aborts at the earliest end of the reproduction cycle. The FDA says is safe and ready to go which makes this an anti-choice policy stance in itself. Often people who are against choice are against it across the spectrum.

BTW, pro-choice means that if you choose not to have an abortion because you don’t believe in it, then that is your choice. Any attempt to keep a woman from making any reproductive choices is anti-choice.

[Stratocaster]

@Snag

BTW, pro-choice means that if you choose not to have an abortion because you don’t believe in it, then that is your choice.

No, a simple reading of “pro-choice” does not at all lead to that single meaning. It means that because you (and many others) assign that meaning to it. There is nothing about the words themselves in “pro-choice” that prevent someone from inferring that it means that you support the right to choose to kill unruly teenagers. I’m not saying you do, of course.

Any attempt to keep a woman from making any reproductive choices is anti-choice.

No, it’s anti- a particular choice, not all choices. Why is it so difficult to concede that both sides chose names that had the most favorable connotations? Why is it so difficult to call people what they’d prefer to be called? And keep in mind that if you will not extend this simple courtesy, than you have no complaint if someone prefers to refer to your beliefs as “pro-death,” or something similar.

This aspect of this debate is so @#$%ing tiresome. “Your name is false and misleading! Our name is as clear as a mountain stream.” Sheesh.

[Snag]

@Stratocaster

Cite, please?

Who needs a cite? If there weren’t a disconnect the people that call themselves pro-life would have used their political clout over the decades to have seen to it that most unwanted children would be adopted. We wouldn’t have half a million unwanted children. The red tape would have been stripped from the adoption process with special considerations for any unwanted child to make people more willing to adopt such as a free college education. All they’d have to do is make the grades to qualify. And to give those few that do not get adopted some advantages to compensate for the lack of a stable home life. We might see trust funds set up for the unwanted that matures when they turn 18 or 21 so that they have a financial base to start with among other considerations.

The unwanted would be very well cared for by the pro-life community, through both governmental and private means if they really gave a rat’s patoote about it

Oh, also as a reference back to the OP, this reminds me of what I consider the major misstep by the pro-choice side. I see adoption as a legitimate choice. I’m sure there are women who would be willing to give a child up for adoption if they knew with certainty that the system was set up as above to insure that their offspring would be exceptionally well cared for and had a high chance of adoption. It would bring peace of mind to a number of women, but seeing the realities that the unwanted child faces abortion without such assurances might well be considered a mercy.

Why doesn’t the pro-choice side take up this banner and carry it? If the people against choice who haven’t walked the talk after all these decades, preparing the way for much greater numbers of unwanted they would prefer seeing, then the choice side needs to do so. While pro-choice people may be less motivated to adopt, there is no reason to start the process of exceptional care for the unwanted. This could be the middle ground where both sides can talk and even act together. Those who call themselves pro-life would have to support it unless they are spectacularly uncaring, something that I doubt. And it would morally give the pro-choice side some undeniable ground to stand on. It might finally make it clear to the American people that choice is about more than abortion.

[Snag]

One thing I left out in my previous post is that we would also need protections for those unwanted children to see that they are not taken advantage of because of the special considerations they receive. It will take some additional monitoring. But if many considerations are structured whereby adopting a child mostly removes the expenses of doing so in ways that cannot be used for other purposes, unless approved in some cases for the entire family, protections can be put in place.

[Snag]

@Stratocaster

No, a simple reading of “pro-choice” does not at all lead to that single meaning. It means that because you (and many others) assign that meaning to it. There is nothing about the words themselves in “pro-choice” that prevent someone from inferring that it means that you support the right to choose to kill unruly teenagers. I’m not saying you do, of course.No, it’s anti- a particular choice, not all choices. Why is it so difficult to concede that both sides chose names that had the most favorable connotations? Why is it so difficult to call people what they’d prefer to be called? And keep in mind that if you will not extend this simple courtesy, than you have no complaint if someone prefers to refer to your beliefs as “pro-death,” or something similar.

This aspect of this debate is so @#$%ing tiresome. “Your name is false and misleading! Our name is as clear as a mountain stream.” Sheesh.

First, the choices we are talking about are those that a woman makes about her reproductive health.

Secondly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the term pro-life in itself is a pajorative against those who support a woman’s choices. We are all pro life. Thus it’s not unfair in certain instances to call the other side on what we see as a subtle attempt to demonize their opponents by a label that they themselves don’t always live up to. We are all pro-life but disagree on where the life that springs from sperm and egg cells becomes bonafide human, life different than hundreds of living cells than those you kill by washing your hands. Or what is mother and what is not, if we carry a soul or not. And we have differences on privacy and the on responsibility that society owes to the unwanted. Some don’t care if rape or incest is the cause of the pregancy as in South Dakota.

OK, now not everyone that is pro-life is against contraception. Some are only against that particular choice as you state it. If that were the case with everyone, I’d agree with you. But we have seen campaigns by that side to prevent making condems available to anyone under 18 or providing sex ed other than abstinence only. They use the claim that it will lead to pre-marital sex by those under that age. We’ve seen a campaign against a form of birth control that can also decrease the likelyhood of cervian cancer. The FDA wants to release a well tested, ready to go morning after pill that the Bush adminstration will not give it. Why?

These are other choices than that particular choice that you state that many who are against abortion also support. And some of their grandparents may not have liked the idea, indeed legislated against who can have a child with who. Sure, there are people who are only against abortion, but there are numbers, with clout as we’ve seen by the one veto George Bush has made during his term, who are against more choices than abortion. And if they can turn back the clock further than the Griswold v. Connecticut decision I’m sure some of them will try. Griswold itself was decided only a little over a generation ago.

Don’t take the anti-choice term personally if if doesn’t mean you, but there are people out there who clearly take a stance that would limit most choices. There are attacks against pro-choice on many fronts.

[Salt_Seller]

@Snag

On the other hand, the Bush administration refuses to release a morning after pill that aborts at the earliest end of the reproduction cycle. The FDA says is safe and ready to go which makes this an anti-choice policy stance in itself. Often people who are against choice are against it across the spectrum.

Actually, the morning after pill that BushCo is currently blocking (with the aid of his wife-raping buddy) is nothing more than a special dose of regular birth control pills. It prevents the woman from releasing an egg. It does not cause an abortion. It’s essentially the female equivalent of “pulling out”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Stratocaster

Summary execution of the poor will have a similar effect, I’d posit, given the strong correlation between poverty and crime. But it’s not irresponsible to set this hypothesis aside so much as it is a recognition of its irrelevance. Same with abortion and crime rates, even if we concede the relationship.

You can declare whatever you like irrelevant, but it changes nothing. The pro-choice argument (despite the untenable suggestion of the OP of this thread) is generally one for the individual rights of the woman. If you plan to abridge that right, you will need a particularly good reason. Since we already recognize the concept of justifiable homicide in certain cases where the “victim” is without question a sentient full-fledged human person, it isn’t a stretch to extend this to the non-sentient, under-developed fetus. In order to block this, you’ll have to demonstrate that the protection of this fetus is a critical societal imperative.

My position is that it is not; we’re not so desperate for children that we need to force women to bear them against their will. If we were that desperate, there would have to be far greater effort taken to protect, nurture and educate each child. This is clearly not the case, since many children in the U.S. and Canada are still born into poverty. The crime angle is definitely a factor because it shows society isn’t taking enough of an interest in the children it has already, which demonstrates it won’t take enough of an interest in the additional children it will force to be born through restrictive abortion laws.

Pro-lifers should demonstrate that they care for all children and work like crazy to improve the lives of existing children. When we reach a point where child poverty and malnutrition and dropping out of high-school and whatnot are minimized, then they can try to show that restricting abortion will serve society more that it aggravates its problems, and that the huge bite out of individual freedom can be justified.
Well, get on with it.

[Stratocaster]

@Snag

Who needs a cite? If there weren’t a disconnect the people that call themselves pro-life would have used their political clout over the decades to have seen to it that most unwanted children would be adopted. We wouldn’t have half a million unwanted children. The red tape would have been stripped from the adoption process with special considerations for any unwanted child to make people more willing to adopt such as a free college education. All they’d have to do is make the grades to qualify. And to give those few that do not get adopted some advantages to compensate for the lack of a stable home life. We might see trust funds set up for the unwanted that matures when they turn 18 or 21 so that they have a financial base to start with among other considerations.

The unwanted would be very well cared for by the pro-life community, through both governmental and private means if they really gave a rat’s patoote about it

Who needs a cite? That would be the person making the assertion–you. Your response is fallacious as well. The pro-life group could be united, every man, woman, and child, in providing support to “unwanted children” and that does not mean the effort would be enough to produce the sort of effect you’re describing. I’m not saying they are united, BTW. I’m just pointing out that you made a statement pulled from your ass, and now you’re trying to justify it by saying, “If what I said were false, then the following things would all have occurred,” when there is no such unavoidable logical consequence.

You made an unsupported statement. You have no cite. Be a big person and admit you overstated your position.

[Stratocaster]

@Snag

First, the choices we are talking about are those that a woman makes about her reproductive health.

Can you really be missing the point? How does a simple reading of the word “pro-choice” (i.e., not an understanding of the meaning that people have assigned to it) lead one to assume that it refers to reproductive rights? I can just as easily say to you that “pro-life” refers to those who support the right to life of the unborn. The pro-life sentiment we are talking about is the right to live of the unborn. See?

Secondly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the term pro-life in itself is a pajorative against those who support a woman’s choices.

Which I’ve conceded, just as “pro-choice” is a deliberate selection, designed to paint an unfavorable picture of the opposition, since clearly the “pro-choice” movement does not support all choices.

[Stratocaster]

@Bryan Ekers

You can declare whatever you like irrelevant, but it changes nothing. The pro-choice argument (despite the untenable suggestion of the OP of this thread) is generally one for the individual rights of the woman. If you plan to abridge that right, you will need a particularly good reason. Since we already recognize the concept of justifiable homicide in certain cases where the “victim” is without question a sentient full-fledged human person, it isn’t a stretch to extend this to the non-sentient, under-developed fetus. In order to block this, you’ll have to demonstrate that the protection of this fetus is a critical societal imperative.

My position is that it is not; we’re not so desperate for children that we need to force women to bear them against their will.

I understood your position to be that there is no justification required at all for an abortion. Pro-lifers generally hold that the unborn are human beings deserving of the right to live, similar to the right that those already born enjoy. We don’t justify the right to life of those already born by the benefit it produces to permit them that right. Those benefits are irrelevant. If one believes the same of the unborn–I realize you don’t–it’s not relevant to point out that abortion may affect the crime rate. We don’t search for cost-benefit arguments to afford people the basic right to live. It is simply axiomatic for most (regarding those born, at least). If you hold your position, it is equally irrelevant. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, the crime rate, it seems to me, has no bearing.

If we were that desperate, there would have to be far greater effort taken to protect, nurture and educate each child. This is clearly not the case, since many children in the U.S. and Canada are still born into poverty. The crime angle is definitely a factor because it shows society isn’t taking enough of an interest in the children it has already, which demonstrates it won’t take enough of an interest in the additional children it will force to be born through restrictive abortion laws.

Does your conclusion support a parent’s right to kill their toddlers, as an example? Exterminating poverty-level toddlers would surely have an effect on the crime rate, and their very existence (below the poverty line) would be argument enough to show that society hasn’t sufficient interest in eliminating the conditions of poverty, if I’m following your reasoning.

Pro-lifers should demonstrate that they care for all children and work like crazy to improve the lives of existing children. When we reach a point where child poverty and malnutrition and dropping out of high-school and whatnot are minimized, then they can try to show that restricting abortion will serve society more that it aggravates its problems, and that the huge bite out of individual freedom can be justified.

You’re building the same non sequitur Snag did. For all you know, all pro-lifers are enthusiastically dedicated to supporting “unwanted” children. You are begging the question. More than that, though, is the fact that even if they are not, that does not invalidate their argument. I can oppose child abuse even if I lift not a finger to help abused children, and my position would be the proper one. Do you accept abused children into your home, to care for and support? If not, have you lost the right to voice your opinion? Of course not.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Stratocaster

We don’t search for cost-benefit arguments to afford people the basic right to live. It is simply axiomatic for most (regarding those born, at least).

Does a fully-formed human person sentient legal adult (just to remove any hint of diminished capacity) who enters another person’s home and threatens to injure the homeowner have an axiomoatic basic right to live? This is the basis of my position. Can you remove such a person from your home, using deadly force if required? Can you remove someone who is in your body? If your position is that a homeowner (or a body-owner) can’t, you will need an especially compelling argument.

Does your conclusion support a parent’s right to kill their toddlers, as an example?

No, and there is no contradiction. The fact that it’s a toddler simply means the “body-owner” argument no longer applies.

For all you know, all pro-lifers are enthusiastically dedicated to supporting “unwanted” children.

Oh, are they? Seems to me the effort they currently expend protesting at abortion clinics and seeking abortion legislation would be better spent protesting at the offices of legislators and calling for increased social benefits to children and the streamlining of adoption laws. Wouldn’t that help lay the foundation for a later, stronger argument that abortion can be banned?

Do you accept abused children into your home, to care for and support? If not, have you lost the right to voice your opinion? Of course not.

No, I don’t shelter abused children in my home. But I’m also not working on ways to increase their numbers, as banning abortion without first building the necessary social framework will.

[MrDibble]

@Walloon

I am pro-life, and I am completely uninterested in whether the embryo or fetus has a soul.

Interesting. What are your reasons for being pro-life, if you don’t mind me asking?

@Walloon

And, you know, unless you don’t mind being called “pro-abortion” or “pro-death”, don’t use terms like “anti-choice”. Unless you believe that abortion should be allowed for any reason up to the moment of birth, you’re “anti-choice” too.

I’ve mostly stuck with “pro-life” in this thread, I think. Plus, the term “anti-life” has been used in this thread and others, to refer to the “pro-choice” side. Turnabout’s fair play.
Anyway, I do believe abortion should be allowed for any reason up until birth, so I guess I can continue to call myself “pro-choice”, if that’s OK with you?

[Walloon]

@MrDibble

Interesting. What are your reasons for being pro-life, if you don’t mind me asking?

Pretty simple: I believe the fetus is a human being.

[Sarahfeena]

@Walloon

Pretty simple: I believe the fetus is a human being.

This is pretty much all it boils down to for me, as well. And once you believe this, it is really really hard to imagine any rights the mother might have that would trump the fetus’s right to live.

[AHunter3]

@MrDibble

Interesting. What are your reasons for being pro-life, if you don’t mind me asking?

I’ve mostly stuck with “pro-life” in this thread, I think. Plus, the term “anti-life” has been used in this thread and others, to refer to the “pro-choice” side. Turnabout’s fair play.
Anyway, I do believe abortion should be allowed for any reason up until birth, so I guess I can continue to call myself “pro-choice”, if that’s OK with you?

::raises hand::

Me too. Birth seems the most logical dividing point. I’m OK with a Roe v Wade type of compromise, whereby late-term abortions are restricted, because I understand that their existence upsets many people, but I myself would say “Make your decision before the time of birth; after birth has occurred, that decision has been made.”

[Stratocaster]

@Bryan Ekers

Does a fully-formed human person sentient legal adult (just to remove any hint of diminished capacity) who enters another person’s home and threatens to injure the homeowner have an axiomoatic basic right to live? This is the basis of my position. Can you remove such a person from your home, using deadly force if required? Can you remove someone who is in your body? If your position is that a homeowner (or a body-owner) can’t, you will need an especially compelling argument.

Not sure I’m following you. Are you asserting that the unborn has the right to live so long as he doesn’t impinge upon another’s right to bodily autonomy (or property rights, or whatever)? If so, then the issue of crime statistics is, again, not relevant. If not, I’m not sure what your point is.

No, and there is no contradiction. The fact that it’s a toddler simply means the “body-owner” argument no longer applies.

Again, then the crime stat element would appear to be a red herring.

Oh, are they?

No, I didn’t argue that. Please read what I wrote. I wrote that you are begging the question, in that you are offering as a given that which you need to make an argument for.

Seems to me the effort they currently expend protesting at abortion clinics and seeking abortion legislation would be better spent protesting at the offices of legislators and calling for increased social benefits to children and the streamlining of adoption laws. Wouldn’t that help lay the foundation for a later, stronger argument that abortion can be banned?

Why does that follow? Abortion bans are either supportable based on the rights of the unborn, or they are not. The practical effect of an abortion ban is as relevant as the ban of summarily executing toddlers–which is to say, undeniable, but not relevant, not from the foundation of a typical pro-life argument.

No, I don’t shelter abused children in my home. But I’m also not working on ways to increase their numbers, as banning abortion without first building the necessary social framework will.

Don’t dodge the basic question then. Do you have the moral standing to oppose child abuse or not?

[Stratocaster]

@MrDibble

I’ve mostly stuck with “pro-life” in this thread, I think. Plus, the term “anti-life” has been used in this thread and others, to refer to the “pro-choice” side. Turnabout’s fair play.
Anyway, I do believe abortion should be allowed for any reason up until birth, so I guess I can continue to call myself “pro-choice”, if that’s OK with you?

It’s certainly okay with me. People who prefer the term “pro-choice” will get that from me. Unfortunately, the courtesy is not always given, not from either side.

[Stratocaster]

@MrDibble

Interesting. What are your reasons for being pro-life, if you don’t mind me asking?

You aren’t asking me specifically, but I think this is apropos. In the interest of full disclosure, let me say I am religious, and my religion teaches that abortion is wrong and sinful. My religion also teaches that Catholics should not divorce and remarry, and that we should all go to mass every Sunday. I believe these lessons are true. But I am not a proponent of making these legally binding responsibilities. Why? Because moral obligations that (largely) do not impinge on the rights of other–those decisions that are purely (more or less) personal–are up to individuals to make, insofar as the law is concerned. It’s the same reason I do not oppose SSM. I’m free to make that decision for myself. I don’t believe it should be law.

Abortion is not such a decision, IMO. To make such a decision is to override a “greater” right–the right for a human being, one with the potential for thought, to be unharmed, to be left alone, to live. I don’t deny the right to bodily autonomy. I just see it as less than absolute, and lesser than the right of an innocent to live. It might surprise you to know that there are pro-life atheists who hold similar beliefs.

So, while my religion teaches that it is sinful to steal, I also assert that this is fine public policy, a policy that requires no specific religious beliefs. Does that clarify?