Did you miss the part about “forced to stay preganat and deliver”? That’s a bit more than “not getting what you want”,as you’d like to reduce my argument to.
Who’s erecting the Worzel Gummidges now, hotshot?
Makes a difference, sure, I’ll grant you. A huge difference, not so much. But I don’t expect someone whose counter-argument basically amounts to “force them to carry to term, they’ll grow to love it*” to understand that. Do you even have any kids?
or at least become “reconciled to the fact”, like it’s a bad haircut we’re talking about.
Oddly ,yesterday the Senate passed a law making it a crime to cross state lines in search of an abortion. This is exactly what happened when they were illegal. Are they anticipating something here.
After thinking about this for a while, I have a new question. If you think a tumor and a fetus are different, how are they different? And if you think a sperm cell is different from a fetus, how are they different? I am not just directing this at you…anyone on the pro-choice side who has a POV on this would be great.
One has to establish that something else has no claim? The question being begged is for you to establish there’s a claim.
If you insist. The CDC statistics report the annual number of legal abortions in the U.S. first topping 1 million in 1977, hovering consistently between 1.25 and 1.43 million from 1979 through 1996 and, interestingly, dropping to about 850,000 from 2000-2002. “One million” is a tidy, not-unreasonable number.
“Safe, legal and rare” represent the ideal, with abortions being unnecessary through better sex education and wider use of contraceptives (i.e. fewer unwanted pregnancies) and streamlining the adoption process. For a variety of reasons, though, many of the most ardent pro-life organizations are opposed to the educational and contraceptive measures that are most effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, assuming that promoting abstinence will serve. It doesn’t. Adoption alone does not (or at least it has not) taken up the slack.
The earlier quote from you that inspired my comment:
Doesn’t this clearly imply you believe the fetus has or should have rights by default (i.e. I have to argue that it doesn’t, while you’re exempt from arguing that it does)? My response is that one could give many rights to the fetus, but that none of than can or should trump the rights of the mother. If you meant something else, I invite you to reword the statement.
As for your “demented” statement, if it wasn’t about me personally, was it directed at any particular pro-choice person in this thread? I’m just curious.
This argument, as well as the “private plane” statement of your post #410, suggests you have fairly little respect or understanding for what effect an unwanted pregnancy can actually have. You accusation to DianaG in post #416 of using a strawman was certainly brave of you, after she responded to your sarcastic imagery with sarcastic imagery of her own. Let that be a lesson to her. Well done. Bravo.
As to your question, the right of a person to not have an unwanted object inside their body (regardless of the object’s nature) does (or should) outweigh whatever rights the object may have.
Actually it “smacks of” pointing out that line of discussion leads to pointless debate on word definitions. Heck, we couldn’t even settle in this thread what “responsibility” meant. Is there any point trying to pin down what “person” means? Any definition one tries to offer will be challenged by others seeking to specifically include or specifically exclude, depending on where their feelings on the issue lie. This is pointless. The woman’s rights are sufficient.
It is a bit chilling, I admit, but the bill (it’s not a law until the House approves it, plus a presidential signature or ten days have passed) actually seeks to prevent taking minors across state lines to seek abortions without parental consent.
If laws get passed restricting the movement of adult women for any reason, then I’d suggest it’s time for civil disobedience.
Well, I suppose anyone who suffers a self-inflicted gunshot wound (either accidental or from a suicide attempt), or someone who develops lung tumors after forty years of smoking, or someone who develops tooth decay after a lifelong sugary diet is just going to have to live with it, then. Medical treatments exist, but they’re only for the deserving.
Then you won’t object if the right to live we bestow on persons who are not living inside other persons is not extended to a fetus, given its unique status.
This is mere cherry-picking, I know, but I couldn’t resist. This, however:
In the future ,it is possible to make a complete human from a small body part,if enough DNA exists. Then you can define life as a leg or an eyeball and amputations would be immoral.Maybe a law stopping nail trimmong and haircuts would be in line.
A stretch. sure But I see a frozen embryo which will be tossed in a garbage can eventually as a big stretch. Especially one that can only be seen with a microscope.
Are you serious? I’d think it was obvious:
one’s a mass of out-of-control cells without any overall order, the other’s a contolled mass of differentiated cells which is a stage in the development of an organism / one’s a motile haploid cell looking to meet an egg, the other’s the result of that kind of meeting, and a stage in the development of an organism.
I think what you actually want to ask, is if there’s anything SPECIAL about a foetus/ if I see the* MORAL* difference between excising a tumor (or masturbating) and having an abortion. Is that right?
And I say, again, no. And arguments about potential are pretty much non-starters with me.
They passed a bill that would make it illegal to take a minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion. The House version of the bill was quite different, and it has not yet been signed into law at all.
I’ve already stated time and again that no fetuses are welcome in my uterus, ever. If your position is ‘don’t have sex or else accept that you’re going to have a kid’, then that’s nothing more than a dressed up ‘punish the slut’ position.
Doesn’t matter to me whether it ‘costs an enormous amount’. The only point with which I am concerned is whether a woman wants to be pregnant, or doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she should be able to get herself unpregnant at any time.
If that were the case, then adoption would be preferable to a surgical procedure, don’t you think? The point is, abortion is the only alternative to remaining pregnant that exists.
I don’t see the pro-lifers running on out to try to get all of those embryos born.
This is one issue in which I find myself able to, even after years of thought and debate, conclusively settle on either side of the argument.
One of the key issues here is, in fact, the issue of when does a feotus become “alive”? It’s a very weak argument to say that a fertalized egg or zygote is a human being and affords rights, but you’d have to be near criminally insane to say that a feotus just weeks away from birth wasn’t one. So is there some kind
of gradient here? Absolutely, yes. But my big problem is deeper, and that is “life” itself. “Life” is a rather arbitrary designation anyways. There a number of things in nature that we just don’t really know whether or not to classify as “Life” or not. Such flexibility in the rules of what denotes “life” is rather disturbing, though not really unexpected when you think about it. With this in mind, any decission on when a fetus becomes alive enough to afford protection is obviously an arbitrary one. Such is the nature of laws though, they are always arbitrary and generic, such as being an “Adult” at 18, being “mature enough” to drink at 21. Frankly this
suggests to me that the solution for this problem isn’t in the realm of legislation.
On to the idea of “choice”. It’s my body it’s my choice. Fair enough, but why isn’t only women are afforded this decision after conception? Men are only given the “choice” of using contraception or not having sex. Men are always given such scornful rebukes as “If you didn’t want a kid you shouldn’t have had sex / you should have worn a condom.” True enough, but condoms aren’t a sure fire thing, and can even, god forbid, be sabatouged. A Man can do everything he can (short of not having sex) to prevent pregnancy, but if he fails he has no say from
then on and is financially responsible for the next 18 years. Having sex is a calculated risk, and Men are expected to know this and act accordingly, good thing. But why aren’t Women expected to? Because having a child can “affect
the quality of life” they are afforded the right to abort it (yes there are health concerns, but not in every pregnancy). Certainly the birth of a child and subsequent financial responsibility affects the “quality of life” of a the father just
as much, no? But, no, dammit, Men are just mindless breeders and should control their penis and will be held accountable. This subtle disdain for males on the side of pro-choicers bothers me. If woman can abort the child, why can’t men disown it and disolve financial responsibility within the same time frame? Certainly the mother could make a more informed choice if the father can come forth and say “I don’t want this, this affects me too much, I won’t cough up the dough”.
I also dislike the dehumanization on part of the pro-choicers. Face it, pregnancy is part of humanity, every single human starts out this way and it’s a natural part of the human existance. Feotuses are humans. Doesn’t mean you can’t destroy
one, I’m not saying that. But the consistant referal to prebirth human existance as “blood clots” and the like is quite obviously an effort to dehumanize the process to make one more comfortable with it. It’s the same thing that happens
with many meat eaters, they don’t want to see the “poor” animals butchered, but they’ll gladly enjoy the spoils of it. Me I say eat meat as gladly as I do, but acknowledge what your behaviour entails.
Now onto my much bigger issue with pro-lifers (these are stupid designations aren’t they?). I do not like government involvement in personal life. Period. Any act of government enforcement is at gun point, all enforcement relies on the fear of punishment. I sure like the Velvet Underground but I wouldn’t like the government telling me at gun point to listen to them. Hence, I find that the Federal Government has no place in this argument, what so ever. It’s conceivable that it’s the states concern, as all matters not dictated as the pervue of the Federal Government are the concern of State Governments. But either way, I’m not comfortable telling someone at gunpoint they have to have a child.
I suppose, techinically, that makes me pro-choice, but I would never denote myself as such, due to my previous stated issues with the mentality behind many “pro-choicers”. Ultimately I suppose I come down on the side of personal responsibility, as I always do. The current legal state of the issue concerns me, because the concerns of the male are dismissed as being their just
deserts. That the mother can go, “whoops, turns out I can’t afford a child, h’yuk, guess I’ll sponge off his father for the next 18 years.” troubles me. Does this always happen? of course not. Does it happen? Yep. Heard a rather interesting NPR show on the current dismal state of “fathers rights” in this country (a common occurance is a mother bringin the child to term and then putting it up for adoption, without the father ever knowing, but then once the father finds out, they have ZERO legal rights to raise that child), it’s distressing.
But, all said and done, this doesn’t matter much to me, as I can’t seem to get laid lately.
It IS obvious to me…just wanted to see if it was to you.
The “stage of development” thing is what I was going after. The OP had to do with the pro-choice side understanding where the pro-life side is coming from. These threads tend to wander all over the place, talking about sperm and eggs and tumors and whatnot, but none of that is what is at issue. At issue is the fetus (blastocite, zygote, embryo, etc.), which in fundamental ways is completely different from any of these other things, and what that means to the pro-life side. MojoBox expressed it very well with this paragraph:
(Apologies to MojoBox for snipping part of the post…I know your post is clearly not meant to support my side, but I think you make some very, very good points.) My point is that if you want to say, “look, I know the zygote is a human life form at a particular stage of development, but to me it does not matter, you should have the right to remove it,” then that’s fine. But to counter the argument with comparing it to all this other stuff is just disingenuous. You know it’s not the same as a “loogie,” as someone said back in the thread, and you know it’s not the same as a blood clot.
No, that wasn’t what I wanted to ask. I wanted to know how pro-choicers see the biology of the fetus, not the moral status of the fetus. This is a totally different issue, and if you really think that a fetus has the same moral status as a tumor, then I guess that’s your perogative, but given that you understand that it is a human organism at a certain stage of development, and that an egg cell, a sperm cell, a tumor, a loogie, etc. are not, I would think that you would consider it to at least be a more complicated issue than what you are making it out to be…
I attempted to read every post in this very long thread. If I misunderstood something (or missed it completely), please point it out.
I wanted to take as stab at understanding exactly what the argument/debate/issue is. Sorry that the post is so long, but I wanted to make sure I covered everything. I think sometimes that people argue past each other.
Here is what I came up with:
A woman finds herself pregnant. She does not want to be pregnant. There are no health concerns. Her life is not in danger. The baby is a result of consensual sex. She merely does not want to be pregnant at this time.
Group A thinks she should have the legal right to an abortion because the baby/fetus is not in fact a person. Abortion in this case is like removing an unwanted wart, or tumor. If, in fact, this is not a person, then they are correct.
Group B acknowledges the personhood (personness?) of the baby/fetus, but believes that the woman’s right to control of her body is greater than the child’s right to use her body for purposes of development. And if the woman’s right to control her body is greater then the baby/fetus’ right to use it, then this group is correct.
Group C thinks that the woman should not have the legal right to an abortion. Group C thinks that the baby/fetus is a person, but also thinks that the baby has a right to use the woman’s body that is greater than the woman’s right to evict the baby/fetus. If the baby/fetus is a person, and his or her rights of use are greater than the woman’s right to evict, then this group is correct
Some people can be in group A and B. For example, they don’t think that the baby/fetus is a person, but even if they were suddenly convinced that is was, they still think that the woman’s rights trump the rights of the baby/fetus.
Admitted: Some people believe that the baby/fetus becomes a person and/or receives rights at a point between conception and birth. They may be group A for the 1st trimester, group B for the 2nd, and group C for the 3rd. So this changes the debate from “is the baby/fetus a person with rights” to “at what point does the baby/fetus become a person, and at what point does this person gain rights, and at what point does this persons right to be taken care of trump the parents right to control their life”.
Everyone I have heard agrees that after birth, a baby is a person, and their right to life is greater than a parent’s right to not be inconvenienced. Parents can exercise their right to become a not-parent by putting the baby up for adoption, which does not infringe on the babies right to life. But if a parent tries to become a not-parent by killing the baby, then they are infringing on the babies right to life. We then call the parent criminals and punish them. The debate is that some people argue that the babies personhood and rights occur at some point before birth. All the way to the point of conception.
Did I cover everything? Did I say something anyone disagrees with?
A friend of mine was asked in her weblog if she found that there was some conflict or hypocrisy between her devotion to her daughter and her pro-choice political position, and responded to the question in a subsequent blog post.
I think that she hits the essence of the pro-choice position that I, at least, have, though she does so from a much more personally engaged position as someone who is actually a mother. (And other, more personal positions – her link about the personal ambivalence she has on the subject is also a major part of her perspective, which I can’t share as a more or less able-bodied person.)
I think your synopsis is pretty good. I would say that when it comes to LEGALITIES, I fall mostly into the camp of people quoted above. This is NOT due to my convictions about the personhood of the fetus or the morality of abortion, but more because I am a realist about it. I do not think that trying to change the legalities of abortion is necessarily where the pro-life movement needs to put its efforts. Efforts should be put behind: 1) Promoting adoption as a better alternative, 2) Giving financial and other kinds of support to women who are pregnant and need help, and 3) Working on changing attitudes towards abortion. IMO, stricter abortion laws may have a negative effect on these goals.
I’d take minor issue with Group B’s definition, changing it to “Group B acknowledges or is indifferent to the personhood of the fetus, but believes that the woman’s right to control of her body…”
I agree. I meant to make it that you could be in group A, or group B, or in both. But the way I worded it makes it that if you are in group B, you are automatically in group A.
I think this is a slightly different debate. Your argument (as I understood it), is that there should be no government involvment in the personal life, at all. Thus, no police, firemen, dog catchers, etc. I would be happy to discuss this, but I think that it not really part of the abortion debate
Well that’s simple, Police, fireman, dog catchers, etc. are designed to protect the rights of individuals from being infringed by other individuals. There’s a big difference between the state using taxes to employ a police and firedepartment for the protection of property and rights, and the government declaring a ruling, pro or con, on abortion.
What I ment was that the abortion decision should be made by one or two (or a half dozen if your a wierdo) consenting adults, not an arbitrary legal process.
Take a look at post #433. If group A or B is right, then I agree. But, if group C is correct, then wouldn’t there exist an obligation on the governments parts to
If group C is correct, then the babies would need someone to protect their rights, I think.