"Partial-Birth Abortion": morally the same as any other abortion method

[JThunder]

@1010011010

JThunder’s addition to that discussion is, essentially, “What if the person is black?”

No, it isn’t. Often, when people want to avoid uncomfortable questions, they resort to sleight of hand. Your statement is a perfect example of that.

curlcoat specifically stated that only the mother has the right to decide when the organism in question becomes human. (Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that the unborn is indeed something that must eventually become human, rather than being human from the onset.) To examine the validity of this premise – namely, that one can not decide this matter for other people – I specifically asked,

"What if a woman decides that it doesn’t become human until two years of age? Or three? Or thirteen?

For that matter, what about people who believed that blacks weren’t fully human? Should we object if they were to declare, ‘You have no right to decide this matter for me’?"
The reasoning behind these questions has been correctly discerned and eloquently expressed by both Stratocaster and the pro-choicer, cosmodan.

Now you choose to summarize my response as “What if the person is black?” As you know full well though, that was only one tiny portion of my line of inquiry, and your particular phrasing edits out its entire rationale. It’s a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable questions, but convenience and accuracy aren’t by no means the same thing.

[curlcoat]

@JThunder

No, it isn’t. Often, when people want to avoid uncomfortable questions, they resort to sleight of hand. Your statement is a perfect example of that.

curlcoat specifically stated that only the mother has the right to decide when the organism in question becomes human. (Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that the unborn is indeed something that must eventually become human, rather than being human from the onset.) To examine the validity of this premise – namely, that one can not decide this matter for other people – I specifically asked,

"What if a woman decides that it doesn’t become human until two years of age? Or three? Or thirteen?

For that matter, what about people who believed that blacks weren’t fully human? Should we object if they were to declare, ‘You have no right to decide this matter for me’?"
The reasoning behind these questions has been correctly discerned and eloquently expressed by both Stratocaster and the pro-choicer, cosmodan.

Now you choose to summarize my response as “What if the person is black?” As you know full well though, that was only one tiny portion of my line of inquiry, and your particular phrasing edits out its entire rationale. It’s a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable questions, but convenience and accuracy aren’t by no means the same thing.

I’m still not getting why you think that a two, three or thirteen year old black or Jewish or whatever person is the same thing as a fetus. A two, three or thirteen year old black or Jewish or whatever person is not in a parasitic relationship with anyone, and can be kept alive by anyone, or in the case of the thirteen year old possibly by the person in question themself. A fetus can only be kept alive by the woman it is in, unless it has developed to the point of being viable outside her body. At that time, if the woman wants it out and you are so worried about killing it, you are welcome to pay the expenses to extract it safely and all hospital bills that are run up in order to get it to the point where it is actually viable on it’s own. Since it is highly likely that the woman wanted to abort at this stage because there is something seriously wrong with the fetus, you also cannot hand the subsequent baby off to any government agency nor can you get any taxpayer money to help you take care of it.

In other words, if you think it’s human and you want to block it’s being aborted, you are responsible for it. Just as the people who created the two, three or thirteen year old black or Jewish or whatever person are responsible for that person. If you want to impose your morals on a pregnant woman, you should pay the cost. IMNSHO, the rights of the woman who is essentially trapped by pregnancy trump the rights of the fetus and if she doesn’t want it, she shouldn’t have to continue with the pregnancy. But I can respect your opinion and moral choice by allowing you to pay for this highly likely very damaged baby to be if you want. What I cannot respect is anyone that thinks their moral beliefs should trump anyone else’s right to pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

[1010011010]

@JThunder

No, it isn’t. Often, when people want to avoid uncomfortable questions, they resort to sleight of hand. Your statement is a perfect example of that.

You might have tried setting me straight by responding to my reply to your previous post.

@JThunder

curlcoat specifically stated that only the mother has the right to decide when the organism in question becomes human. (Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that the unborn is indeed something that must eventually become human, rather than being human from the onset.) To examine the validity of this premise – namely, that one can not decide this matter for other people – I specifically asked,
"What if a woman decides that it doesn’t become human until two years of age? Or three? Or thirteen?

For that matter, what about people who believed that blacks weren’t fully human? Should we object if they were to declare, ‘You have no right to decide this matter for me’?"

Rather than repeating your post back to me, you could reply to my responses to that same post.

@JThunder

The reasoning behind these questions has been correctly discerned and eloquently expressed by both Stratocaster and the pro-choicer, cosmodan.

There’s some interest in the “two, three, 13?” aspect, but it doesn’t look like either of the posters you invoke are much of a champion for your “What if the person is black?” comment.

curicoat’s original comment that prompted yours contains the “separated from the mother” bit that answers the “two, three, 13?” portion of your comment before you had even asked it. You can observe the same reasoning in my response to Stratocaster’s viability question. My reply to you assumed you were posing some more complex question than the one already asked and answered.

@JThunder

Now you choose to summarize my response as “What if the person is black?” As you know full well though, that was only one tiny portion of my line of inquiry, and your particular phrasing edits out its entire rationale. It’s a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable questions, but convenience and accuracy aren’t by no means the same thing.

I’m not finding evidence anyone has identified the rationale behind your comments about black people. I’ve given you a response on that point. Instead of replying to that or any other comments and clarifying your position, you repeat yourself. Convenient, eh?

[Stratocaster]

@curlcoat

I’m still not getting why you think that a two, three or thirteen year old black or Jewish or whatever person is the same thing as a fetus. A two, three or thirteen year old black or Jewish or whatever person is not in a parasitic relationship with anyone, and can be kept alive by anyone, or in the case of the thirteen year old possibly by the person in question themself.

That’s still not answering the question, which addressed curlcoat’s notion that only the mother could decide when a fetus becomes human. JThunder’s question (among others) is who are you to tell a woman that she must consider her two-year old human?

A fetus can only be kept alive by the woman it is in, unless it has developed to the point of being viable outside her body. At that time, if the woman wants it out and you are so worried about killing it, you are welcome to pay the expenses to extract it safely and all hospital bills that are run up in order to get it to the point where it is actually viable on it’s own. Since it is highly likely that the woman wanted to abort at this stage because there is something seriously wrong with the fetus, you also cannot hand the subsequent baby off to any government agency nor can you get any taxpayer money to help you take care of it.

So, at the point of viability, the mother has the right to kill the child if she’d rather not pay for him? A viable child, one that could be delivered and that would effectively terminate the pregnancy–the mother’s rights go that far? And if I won’t pay for the child, I can’t have an opinion? I’m back to JThunder’s question: why can’t the mother make this decision immediately after birth, or at one year? Who are we to interfere if I won’t right a check for this specific instance (BTW, I would support raising this child at the very least with my tax dollars–funding adoptions, etc.).

[kanicbird]

@cosmosdan

After all, we were known before we were in the womb right?

Yes, before the foundations of the earth we layed, God knew us.

If we’re going to make arbitrary guesses about theology then let’s try to make more positive ones.

How do we define positive, using man’s wisdom or God’s?

[JThunder]

Stratocaster has it exactly right.

Additionally, I’d like to ask… By what rule of law or logic can one declare that only the mother has the right to make this determination? Why the mother, as opposed to, say, an embryologist or a philosopher? When it comes to matters of life and death, is it not best for such decisions to be made by disinterested third parties rather than by those who have the most to personally lose or gain?

[JThunder]

@curlcoat

I’m still not getting why you think that a two, three or thirteen year old black or Jewish or whatever person is the same thing as a fetus…

And if I had claimed that they were the same, then your response would have profound implications. As you know full well though, I made no such claim. Rather, in response to the claim that only the mother can decide if her offspring is human, I asked why this standard holds true for the unborn, but not for the fully born.

Obviously, this is not the same as asserting that a fetus is the same thing as a thirteen-year old black or Jew. One could choose to act as though I were declaring them to be identical, but that’s obviously not an honest rephrasing of my question.

[kanicbird]

@cosmosdan

Obviously some people do consider do consider them fully human which is why they fight to protect their rights. Are you saying we shouldn’t consider them fully human?

IMHO They are unquestionably fully human. The real issue is we can not perceive them as such unless God reveals it to us.

Do the unborn past the point of viability deserve a different consideration than within the first few weeks?

I do believe there is a point where the soul fully enters to body from the ‘secret places underground’ (Ps 139:15), though I believe that this child is sacrificed (given over to) to Baal, the god of child sacrifice, promiscuity as spoken of in scriptures, through the abortion. Though God may ‘knit together’ (Ps 139:13) another body, this child is at a major disadvantage, born of the enemy, born not caring about anyone but self and not knowing love anymore. I believe the move towards motiveless crimes and our uncaring society is a direct result.

If the person is fully inside the fetus, I believe that child is murdered and with the Lord.

And we don’t know when the soul enters the physical body right? In fact for all we know the soul might be born into another body. Early Christians taught reincarnation just as other religions teach it now.

I don’t believe we can know when the soul fully enters with our own knowledge, but I do believe God can reveal this.

[1010011010]

@Stratocaster

That’s still not answering the question, which addressed curlcoat’s notion that only the mother could decide when a fetus becomes human. JThunder’s question (among others) is who are you to tell a woman that she must consider her two-year old human?

Is considering a two year old human or not relevant to the question of whether it’s justifiable to kill it? Not really. If you have a practical option to transfer care, killing it is an excessive remedy.

@Stratocaster

So, at the point of viability, the mother has the right to kill the child if she’d rather not pay for him? A viable child, one that could be delivered and that would effectively terminate the pregnancy–the mother’s rights go that far?

Practically speaking, you cannot schedule an elective induction to give birth four months premature. “viable” != “one that could be delivered”. Prior to viability it is simply not possible to keep a premature infant alive because you cannot force gas exchange across undeveloped lungs. “viable” != “good chance of survival”. Premature induction as you propose would still likely result in death.

@Stratocaster

And if I won’t pay for the child, I can’t have an opinion? I’m back to JThunder’s question: why can’t the mother make this decision immediately after birth, or at one year? Who are we to interfere if I won’t right a check for this specific instance (BTW, I would support raising this child at the very least with my tax dollars–funding adoptions, etc.).

Immediately after birth, or at one year, the infant has already been separated from the woman and may be transferred into the care of someone else if the mother is unwilling. The practical availability of that option makes choosing homicide (insurmountably?) harder to justify.

[1010011010]

@JThunder

By what rule of law or logic can one declare that only the mother has the right to make this determination?

She is the one whose will shall be made subservient to a fetus if she chooses to continue the pregnancy.

@JThunder

Why the mother, as opposed to, say, an embryologist or a philosopher? When it comes to matters of life and death, is it not best for such decisions to be made by disinterested third parties rather than by those who have the most to personally lose or gain?

If an embryologist of philosopher is pregnant, they’re welcome to make the decision for themselves by whatever lights that guide them.

I’d also object to the characterization as a “matter of life and death” as commonly understood except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. Even in such cases, no, I still don’t think it’s up to a “disinterested third party” to tell her she must risk her life to carry to term or that she must terminate the pregnancy. She is the only one that will face the risks involved, she is the one who decides what level of risk she’s willing to accept.

[cosmosdan]

@1010011010

In terms of a unwanted pregnancy, the only practical options for woman are to remain pregnant against her will, or to terminate the pregnancy. “Viability” does not change anything.

The question is whether viability changes something for the fetus and for society. It’s about whether the woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy is absolute from conception to birth, or whether the fetus deserves our protection and some consideration as a person once it reaches viability. So, viability does change something. I’d say it even changes something for the woman carrying the child in that choices available to her are different

After the moment of birth, when the fetus has been separated from the mother, transfer of care becomes readily available as an option. At that point, homicide becomes considerably harder to justify as a preferred option for an unwilling parent.

Transfer of care becomes an option at viability which is why it’s a contentious point.

Regarding JThunder (and cosmodan):
There has been a very patient ongoing discussion about the significant differences between a person and a fetus. JThunder’s addition to that discussion is, essentially, “What if the person is black?”

It’s cosmos with that second S,
You’ve missed the essence of what** JT** was saying.

The question is nonsensical. We could do some mental contortions to try to pretend it’s appropriate to the discussion at hand, but allow me to refactor that mode of thought and present a similar (counter)argument: You have no more right to enslave a black woman against her will than a fetus has a right to enslave a black woman against her will. If a fetus chooses to abuse it’s rights in such a manner, death is an appropriate punishment. :dubious: It’s a ridiculous distraction.

With this simplistic view I’d be careful about throwing words like nonsense around. Does a viable fetus enslave a woman anymore than a newborn does? In either case the woman can still decide that she doesn’t want the child. If she’s still carrying the child she must choose a medical procedure. A viable fetus gives her more choices about what procedure to have. The question is whether the viable fetus should be protected or has any rights as a person or potential person. You may feel the answer is obvious but that’s just your opinion and it doesn’t make people with different opinions ridiculous or nonsensical.

[JThunder]

@1010011010

She is the one whose will shall be made subservient to a fetus if she chooses to continue the pregnancy.

And a mother or father who’s saddled with unwanted children is the one who is subservient to them. This doesn’t make them eminently qualified to decide if these children should live or die.

If an embryologist of philosopher is pregnant, they’re welcome to make the decision for themselves by whatever lights that guide them.

Again, your argument assumes that the pregnant person is the most eminently qualified to decide if something deserves to live or not. That’s not how our justice system functions.

[1010011010]

@cosmosdan

The question is whether viability changes something for the fetus and for society. It’s about whether the woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy is absolute from conception to birth, or whether the fetus deserves our protection and some consideration as a person once it reaches viability. So, viability does change something. I’d say it even changes something for the woman carrying the child in that choices available to her are different

If a fetus is separated from it’s host mother four months premature, it will probably still die. While you could keep it alive for a while with machines, those same machines could be used elsewhere to benefit someone with a better chance of living and/or a higher expectation of ongoing quality of life.

Basically, is the benefit in keeping an unwanted 4-month elective induction alive greater than the cost of some other infant, with better chances, dying because NICU space is unavailable?

@cosmosdan

Transfer of care becomes an option at viability which is why it’s a contentious point.

From a practical perspective, no it does not. Elective/scheduled delivery generally will not be performed prior to 38 weeks, AFAIK, several months after “viability”. In my experience (pregnant cow-orkers, my sister-in-law’s kids), they are often also delivered by C-section. In the case of a extremely premature fetus, it would almost certainly be c-section. Major abdominal surgery carries a significantly higher risk than various abortion procedures.

As noted above, for what benefit and at what cost?

@cosmosdan

With this simplistic view I’d be careful about throwing words like nonsense around. Does a viable fetus enslave a woman anymore than a newborn does?

Yes. Biology does not force a particular woman to care for a newborn against her will.

@cosmosdan

In either case the woman can still decide that she doesn’t want the child. If she’s still carrying the child she must choose a medical procedure. A viable fetus gives her more choices about what procedure to have. The question is whether the viable fetus should be protected or has any rights as a person or potential person. You may feel the answer is obvious but that’s just your opinion and it doesn’t make people with different opinions ridiculous or nonsensical.

If the change of status is pegged to when the fetus is separated from the mother, when it theoretically could be separated is irrelevant nonsense.

Assuming that, in terms of real-world availability, a woman has the option to elect for a 4-month premature delivery to separate the fetus from her, it’s her choice if that makes sense to her. It certainly would not make sense to me, and I’d recommend against it for the reasons mentioned above, but I would not require her to decide one way or the other based on my opinion.

---

JThunder,
Your most recent assertion of a new complexity is one I originally addressed when you first posed your 2-3-13 question, as the viability angle was covered by curlcoat in the post that prompted your question. Feel free to reply to that existing response and move the conversation forward rather than continue repeating asked and answered questions.

[cosmosdan]

@curlcoat

As I also said in that post, if for whatever reason a woman decides she needs to have an abortion past the point when the fetus might be viable outside her body, if you feel so strongly that she shouldn’t be allowed to do that, then you should sign up to pay all expenses and then adopt it when it can leave the hospital. Whether or not it is expected to live more than a couple of days, whether or not it will be profoundly disabled. If you want to give that parasite legal rights as a person, then you also need to step up to the plate and pay for it. It’s really easy to sit there and say that a fetus is a human and noone should be allowed to abort it, until you yourself actually have to deal with the outcome of that belief.

I already have dealt with it and I know it’s not easy. This is a discussion and I’m not trying to minimize the issues or the difficulties involved by participating and trying to keep it brief. FTR I agree with you. Those who feel a woman doesn’t have right to choose abortion out of a sense of protecting a child {fetus} do have a moral obligation to step up and care for the children they insist should be born. That a very real and critical part of the issue. We have plenty of children in the world who are in need of loving care, medical attention, a chance at an education. I don’t have much patience for people who are “pro life” just until the child is born and then it’s not their problem. There’s a clinic right across from my apartment and I see protesters there almost every weekend. I’ve often thought of stopping to ask them if they have offered any practical aide to an unwed mother or unwanted child. But that’s not the discussion at hand.

As a society we already offer aide to single Moms and children without parental care so in a sense we are already paying for it. I was moved by the descriptions up thread of women having to make the painful choice to terminate late in their pregnancy because of medical complications with the fetus. I haven’t proposed anything like forcing women to have children that won’t live or with profound disabilities so please don’t lay that on me. I’m only suggesting that the issue isn’t clear and the answers aren’t as obvious as your earlier post seemed to make it. If a woman or young girl decides late in her healthy normal pregnancy that for whatever reason , she no longer wants to raise a child, should she have the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy even if the healthy fetus has an excellent chance on living outside the mother? That’s a serious and valid question that we as a society are still trying to work out. We as a society already limit people’s choices when we see that choice might harm another person. That’s the issue here. Is a viable healthy fetus a person that deserves consideration and protection?

I have no idea what the laws are these days nor do I know what “much of society” thinks, but from the OP in this thread it sounds like woman can still abort a late term fetus. Even if she can’t it is still in no way the same thing as going about killing real live actual humans just because they are black or Jewish.

Well here’s some details including

As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order.

The point being made wasn’t about being black or Jewish. It was about one person deciding another person isn’t really a person with any rights. Your post indicated a woman had the sole right to decide what to do and if the fetus was a person or not. Historically people have held that attitude about others before and we now see that as morally unacceptable. Yes there is an obvious difference but the line isn’t clearly whether the fetus is inside the mother or not.

The thread is about morals. There is no overwhelming majority opinion on when a fetus becomes a human, nor is there one with regards to whether or not a woman should be able to abort at any time if the fetus is profoundly retarded. There is however a vast majority opinion that it is immoral to kill an actual human just because he happens to be black or Jewish or whatever.

The point being that what we view as moral or immoral varies and is subject to change as we struggle with issues. Blacks were once viewed as property with no human rights. Majority opinion does not constitute morality other than in a purely subjective and temporary way.

Your moral decision is apparently that a fetus is human long before it is naturally born, but that is your opinion. My opinion is that no matter what law might be in effect, you have no right to force women to become slaves to biology. I am also of the opinion that your average adult woman has more rights than a process of nature.

Don’t assume I hold a position I haven’t expressly stated. Lot’s of people hold the view that the moment of conception constitutes a person. I’m not one of them. From the link I provided we see over half of the states have some kind of restrictions on late term abortions so it seems the moral question is still being worked out.

You have every right to your opinion. Just keep in mind it isn’t clearly the correct one and others disagree. It is our duty and our unavoidable destiny as a society to wrestle with these moral issues and try define where the lines are drawn. This one gets complicated because its a question of the woman’s rights balanced against the rights or lack of them of another person or at least potential person.
Your view focuses on the rights of the pregnant woman and *assumes as fact * that a healthy viable fetus is in no way a person and has no rights to be considered. That’s one way of looking at it but there’s nothing morally or intellectually superior about that opinion.

As for the majority getting to pass the laws, well the masses are asses (see Prop 8). We have plenty of laws that I consider to be immoral, but that doesn’t invalidate my morals.

No it doesn’t. Nor does it make them more correct in any way. We try to examine the pertinent facts and come to some conclusion that considers the rights of those involved. It’s possible to respect and consider women’s rights and still feel the need to give a viable fetus some consideration as well.

[cosmosdan]

@1010011010

If a fetus is separated from it’s host mother four months premature, it will probably still die. While you could keep it alive for a while with machines, those same machines could be used elsewhere to benefit someone with a better chance of living and/or a higher expectation of ongoing quality of life.

Basically, is the benefit in keeping an unwanted 4-month elective induction alive greater than the cost of some other infant, with better chances, dying because NICU space is unavailable?

Interesting but I didn’t mention any specific number about viability. The viability at 24 or 28 weeks is quite different than 20. I’m not sure how this supports your argument. It’s true that available resources have to be considered and that’s one of the hard realities.

From a practical perspective, no it does not. Elective/scheduled delivery generally will not be performed prior to 38 weeks, AFAIK, several months after “viability”. In my experience (pregnant cow-orkers, my sister-in-law’s kids), they are often also delivered by C-section. In the case of a extremely premature fetus, it would almost certainly be c-section. Major abdominal surgery carries a significantly higher risk than various abortion procedures.

As noted above, for what benefit and at what cost?

How about the benefit of preserving a human life? Isn’t that the main crux of the medical field. Once again, I don’t understand what point you’re making to support your argument. It’s not really addressing the issue.

Yes. Biology does not force a particular woman to care for a newborn against her will.

Biology carries with it some responsibility that we legally enforce. A woman may legally give a newborn up for adoption but if she simply abandons it or causes it’s death she is held responsible.Similar considerations can be used for the pregnant mother of a viable fetus. She can choose to terminate the pregnancy but the details of which procedure is used may consider the viability of the fetus.

If the change of status is pegged to when the fetus is separated from the mother, when it theoretically could be separated is irrelevant nonsense.

could you rephrase. I’m not sure what you’re calling nonsense. Are you saying there’s no reason to consider when the fetus could live separate from the mother at all?

Assuming that, in terms of real-world availability, a woman has the option to elect for a 4-month premature delivery to separate the fetus from her, it’s her choice if that makes sense to her. It certainly would not make sense to me, and I’d recommend against it for the reasons mentioned above, but I would not require her to decide one way or the other based on my opinion.

Why are you using that particular figure? What if it’s later and the fetus has an excellent chance of surviving? Do we still give the mother the sole decision about the fate of the fetus or do we offer some protection for the fetus. ? Clearly, many states have decided the fetus does deserve some consideration.

[curlcoat]

@Stratocaster

That’s still not answering the question, which addressed curlcoat’s notion that only the mother could decide when a fetus becomes human. JThunder’s question (among others) is who are you to tell a woman that she must consider her two-year old human?

It’s interesting the number of people that have no problem forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That is the only thing I can think of that makes them completely ignore that huge difference between a fetus and a two year old.

So, at the point of viability, the mother has the right to kill the child if she’d rather not pay for him? A viable child, one that could be delivered and that would effectively terminate the pregnancy–the mother’s rights go that far?

I simply don’t believe that any woman has aborted a normal child that could live without medical intervention. If this has ever happened, you would need to provide a cite. So, given that as simply not done, the only other fetus that would be aborted late term is one that only might be viable given medical intervention, or one that is abnormal. So, do you think you have the right to force this woman to pay 100’s of thousands of dollars to see if this fetus might get to the point that it can live on it’s own and/or whatever the cost afterwards because it is abnormal?

And if I won’t pay for the child, I can’t have an opinion?

I would say no. I cannot see why you would have the right to insist that modern medicine keep it alive until it is actually a baby and then insist that someone else pay for it. If you think that is a right that you have, then I have a mortgage bill I would like to exercise that right with - where do I send it?

I’m back to JThunder’s question: why can’t the mother make this decision immediately after birth, or at one year?

I cut this out because I want to be very clear, so I know I’ve done my part in this and if you still don’t understand I can legitimately decide you just don’t want to. A mother can make the decision immediately after birth or at one year that she doesn’t want a baby/child and put it up for adoption. Because she can - a fetus she cannot give to someone else until it attains baby-hood. Do you understand the difference?

Who are we to interfere if I won’t right a check for this specific instance (BTW, I would support raising this child at the very least with my tax dollars–funding adoptions, etc.).

They aren’t just your tax dollars, they are also mine and everyone else that doesn’t support trying to keep this fetus going until it can live on it’s own without medical help. This is why I say if you all who don’t like late term abortions don’t step up to the plate and pay to keep this sort of fetus alive, you shouldn’t have a vote.

[curlcoat]

@JThunder

Stratocaster has it exactly right.

Additionally, I’d like to ask… By what rule of law or logic can one declare that only the mother has the right to make this determination? Why the mother, as opposed to, say, an embryologist or a philosopher? When it comes to matters of life and death, is it not best for such decisions to be made by disinterested third parties rather than by those who have the most to personally lose or gain?

Because the mother is the only one that would be forced to carry the prenancy to term. Women are more that meaty incubators for your faith.

[curlcoat]

@JThunder

And if I had claimed that they were the same, then your response would have profound implications. As you know full well though, I made no such claim. Rather, in response to the claim that only the mother can decide if her offspring is human, I asked why this standard holds true for the unborn, but not for the fully born.

Obviously, this is not the same as asserting that a fetus is the same thing as a thirteen-year old black or Jew. One could choose to act as though I were declaring them to be identical, but that’s obviously not an honest rephrasing of my question.

Your use of the word offspring that I highlighted above shows that you morally don’t see any difference between a fetus and a thirteen year old. Is this true or not?

[curlcoat]

@cosmosdan

If a woman or young girl decides late in her healthy normal pregnancy that for whatever reason , she no longer wants to raise a child, should she have the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy even if the healthy fetus has an excellent chance on living outside the mother? That’s a serious and valid question that we as a society are still trying to work out.

That is a question that needs to be answered only if this is something that is actually happening. I would need a cite to prove to me that any woman had aborted a fetus that could actually live without medical intervention.

The point being made wasn’t about being black or Jewish. It was about one person deciding another person isn’t really a person with any rights. Your post indicated a woman had the sole right to decide what to do and if the fetus was a person or not. Historically people have held that attitude about others before and we now see that as morally unacceptable. Yes there is an obvious difference but the line isn’t clearly whether the fetus is inside the mother or not.

The line is very clear if one has no (most likely religious) ideas about a fetus being a human prior to birth. It is illegal and immoral to go kill a human for no real reason, no matter what their color or religion is. It is not illegal or immoral to kill a non-human. Since it is only the woman who will be profoundly affected by any decision that a fetus is a human, she is the only one whose moral opinion matters. Back when blacks were considered non-human, killing them affected far more than one individual, and noone was expected to keep a black person alive by grafting them to their body, so that comparison doesn’t really apply.

From the link I provided we see over half of the states have some kind of restrictions on late term abortions so it seems the moral question is still being worked out.

I would say that the moral question is more being forced on the state, and women, than being worked out. Besides, morals are not dictated by law, and any law that forces a woman to maintain a pregnancy she doesn’t want is forcing others’ morals on her. How moral is that?

This one gets complicated because its a question of the woman’s rights balanced against the rights or lack of them of another person or at least potential person.

That is the part I don’t get right there - how can the rights of a potential person usurp the rights of an actual person?

Your view focuses on the rights of the pregnant woman and *assumes as fact * that a healthy viable fetus is in no way a person and has no rights to be considered.

No, a healthy viable fetus who can stay alive outside of the mother is a person and to me has rights, tho I don’t really care what the law says about it. However, a healthy viable fetus inside a mother is not necessarily one who can remain healthy and viable outside her. I don’t support the idea that anyone can force her to continue the pregnancy until they decide the fetus can be extracted.

[cosmosdan]

@curlcoat

That is a question that needs to be answered only if this is something that is actually happening. I would need a cite to prove to me that any woman had aborted a fetus that could actually live without medical intervention.

Or wanted to abort? I have no cite at this time but I’ll check. I would assume it’s extremely rare but it’s part of what the discussion of late term abortion is about. Since we were having a general discussion I didn’t assume any parameters on your earlier statement. A premature birth requires some medical intervention.

The line is very clear if one has no (most likely religious) ideas about a fetus being a human prior to birth. It is illegal and immoral to go kill a human for no real reason, no matter what their color or religion is. It is not illegal or immoral to kill a non-human. Since it is only the woman who will be profoundly affected by any decision that a fetus is a human, she is the only one whose moral opinion matters. Back when blacks were considered non-human, killing them affected far more than one individual, and noone was expected to keep a black person alive by grafting them to their body, so that comparison doesn’t really apply.

In other words the line is clear to those who agree with you. Not surprising really. Does abortion profoundly affect the father? The grandparents? Does the loss of potential life affect society as a whole? It’s because the question itself is complex and profound that we are still struggling with it.

I would say that the moral question is more being forced on the state, and women, than being worked out. Besides, morals are not dictated by law, and any law that forces a woman to maintain a pregnancy she doesn’t want is forcing others’ morals on her. How moral is that?

I’ve already said that the issue is complex precisely because it concerns the rights of the woman, the question of rights for an unborn child, and the obligations of society to define who has what rights. I disagree with those who want to outlaw abortions completely and force their personal religious beliefs or moral codes on others. Choose other words if you like but historically I see society changing as we struggle with social and moral issues. There’s always a fairly lengthy and sometimes violent process as people fight to answer questions and overcome obstacles. That’s why I called it being worked out.

That is the part I don’t get right there - how can the rights of a potential person usurp the rights of an actual person?

I’m not suggesting they should. It isn’t usurping someones rights to consider the rights of another. The act of defining where the lines are drawn is consider the rights of the woman and the rights of a potential person. Not one completely usurping the other.

No, a healthy viable fetus who can stay alive outside of the mother is a person and to me has rights, tho I don’t really care what the law says about it. However, a healthy viable fetus inside a mother is not necessarily one who can remain healthy and viable outside her. I don’t support the idea that anyone can force her to continue the pregnancy until they decide the fetus can be extracted.

To clarify for me, this healthy fetus has rights while it’s still in the mother, or only once it’s born?

If a healthy fetus has a good chance of surviving outside the mother and it has rights, then can we insist she choose terminating the pregnancy in a way that considers the welfare of the fetus, such as a C section?