It takes a lot more than “time and continued development” for a zygote to “become a fully functioning human person,” as any woman who’s ever borne a child could attest. Just ask my 8-months-pregnant wife with her swollen ankles and aching back how simple it is.
But for the sake of argument, let’s just assume that “time and continued development” really is all it takes. It is still inescapable that an early-term fetus has not had the time and continued development to become a fully functioning human being. Sure, it might become one, but it ain’t one. It has no more brain or brain function than that anencephelatic baby you mentioned above.
So what’s the moral difference, at that point, between aborting an early-term fetus and aborting a later-term fetus with no brain? Again, is it really just the potential to have a healthy child? If that’s the case, how could you object to drawing the line even pre-conception, since there’s certainly the potential for a healthy child moments, minutes, hours, or even days even before Mr. Sperm bumps into Mrs. Egg in the Fallopian Bar.
I think that the line can be drawn at actuallity. There exists the chance that spontaneous fertilization could occur, but there exists a much better chance that an already fertilixed egg will divide and groe into a normal baby. This is the potential that should be examined.
The potential of the child with no brain to grow into a normal human is the same as that potential for spontaneus fertilization. It is slim to none.
The potential of an early term fetus to grow into a normal human is far far greater and in fact, if nothing intervenes, it will happen. As evidenced by you and you wife (congratulations by the way.)
actually, if nothing intervenes, it will die and rot away. it needs a host. if a woman doesn’t wish to have this new parasite growing inside her and making her ache and all that, who are you to say that she shouldn’t have that choice?
I have found, speaking to those I know who are opposed to the late-term abortions in any scenario, that few of these individuals have a problem with self-defense killing.
To me, that’s what many of those are. If the mother’s life is in danger, how is aborting the fetus–the “person” who is killing her–any different than someone shooting a kidnapper/robber/bad person in self-defense?
While I’m sure many people feel both scenarios (killing a rapist and aborting a child) are wrong, it shocks me how many condone one and condemn the other.
I have found, speaking to those I know who are opposed to the late-term abortions in any scenario, that few of these individuals have a problem with self-defense killing.
To me, that’s what many of those are. If the mother’s life is in danger, how is aborting the fetus–the “person” who is killing her–any different than someone shooting a kidnapper/robber/bad person in self-defense?
While I’m sure many people feel both scenarios (killing a rapist and aborting a child) are wrong, it shocks me how many condone one and condemn the other.
actually, if nothing intervenes, it will die and rot away. it needs a host. if a woman doesn’t wish to have this new parasite growing inside her and making her ache and all that, who are you to say that she shouldn’t have that choice?
Ramanujan, that is exactly what I am saying. That woman (in most circumstances) made a choice/took an action with the consequence of becomming pregnant. She has begun a process that will end by creating a new life. She should not have the choice to arbitrarily end that life/process. Should she not be held responsible for the choice/action? (note that I exclude rape here.)
evilbeth: I don’t see that anyone has suggested that such a process should not be used to save the life of a mother…
Me too. But what’s so special about the actuality of a newly fertilized zygote, as opposed to the actuality of a functioning brain? I would think that the latter is a heck of a lot better indicator of human status than a couple of cells with a new combination of DNA.
I wasn’t talking about spontaneous fertilization. I was talking about Mr. Sperm putting the moves on Mrs. Egg, moments away from combining their DNA. No conception yet, of course, but you can’t reasonably look at that and say there’s any less potential for human life than there would be moments after conception. That’s why I don’t buy the argument about the “potential for human life” test–potential is just too darn squishy.
The question, I would submit, is not what might happen to a fetus in the future, but what it is, now. You seem to have acknowledged that a late-term fetus with no brain is not really human. Is the same true for an early-term fetus that hasn’t developed a functioning brain yet? Sure, it seems pretty likely to become human one day, but it isn’t human now. So why should we treat it like one?
Thank you. When she saw last week that Congress had passed the PBA ban, she walked into where I was painting the new baby room and, without the slightest hint of irony, went off on a short rant about how the bastards are just doing it because they’re afraid of letting women control their own bodies. It was all very cute.
Of course potential is squishy. It is in flux and has to be squishy.
Could it be that the seperate sperm and egg don’t have the same potential that a combined sperm and egg do? That sounds about right to me.
We do make predictions based on potentiality. If I don’t stop at the stop sign, there is a far greater potential that the oncomming traffic will hit me than if I had stopped. A fetus will mature into an adut if I don’t abort it. A lone sperm will not grow up to be a person unless it fertalizes an egg. Seems that there is more potental for the fetus than for the lone egg or sperm.
Since you are in law: Have you looked at the ban? Does it have a provision for cases in which the procedure may um…procede? As in the “mother will die unless…” cases we have been talking about?
No, the PBA ban has no exception for life or health of the mother. Under clear US Supreme Court precedent involving a Nebraska PBA ban that made no exception for life and health, that means the new federal law is D.O.A.
Why? If the test is “potential for human life,” how is that potential any different one second before and one second after fertilization? You can’t just say “Well, it hasn’t happened yet.” That’s precisely my point about fetal brain function, which you dismiss with an appeal to potentiality.
Even if the test is “potential,” how much potential does there have to be before you’re willing to prohibit actions due to that potential? Most fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus, meaning they’ll never develop into a human being. So is the morning-after pill okay, since it prevents implantation of zygotes that probably won’t implant anyway?
Nope, I’m not buying this potential thing for a second. Either it is a human being or it isn’t. If it is, then you can’t abort (absent a threat to your own life or health). If it isn’t, then you can.
NurseCarmen, the bit about Roe v. Wade was not written by me. I’m not sure what made you think I wrote it.
Anyhow, to answer your question:
So you claim that someone walked right into a clinic, in her third tri, plopped down a check and was done with it? Could you please clarify the non-medical reason?
Sure. This woman was from an area of Kentucky known for racism (she was one of my suite mates in college, in Kentucky, where I grew up). Her home county was like, 99.9% white — and she dated mostly black men. Turns up pregnant by one of them. Panics and lives in denial for several months and finally decides she oughta do something about it. Of course it’s too late in KY so she had to go to GA to have it done.
minty, I’m appealing to “greater potentiality.” Change the vocabulary if you like. Call it a likelihood" or something. Doesn’t matter. The egg if it doesn’t implant is not viable, while a healthy fetus is. A baby with no brain isn’t a human being. A healthy fetus will become a human being if it is not aborted. Happens all the time. You’re going to make it happen in a month or so.
The morning after pill is really just a large dose of dirth control. I was under the impression that it just kept an egg from being released if it hadn’t already. Does it thicken the uterus or some other method instead?
Not so. Sure, the odds are pretty good that it will become a human being, but it’s far from certain.
You’re correct that it’s just a large dose of the same stuff in the ordianry birth control pill. What it does is completely different, however. When used as a contraceptive, the pill prevents release of an egg, so nothing is ever there to get fertilized in the first place. When used as a morning-after pill, it somehow alters the uterine lining (I am unsure of the precise mechanism) to prevent the implantation of an already-fertillized egg.
In light of that, do you consider the morning-after pill okay, since it prevents implantation of zygotes that probably won’t implant anyway?
I have a severely hyperactive immune system that will attack anything and everything that is not my own tissue, and many things that are my own tissue (my lungs, skin, eyes, and other organs). A healthy fetus is unlikely to be viable if it were in my uterus because my immune system would attack it.
It will prevent an egg from being released if one has not already. It also causes you to shed your endometrial lining (get your period) so that a zygote couldn’t implant.
SnoopyFan, if your acquaintance did all that to have a legal abortion, do you really think making abortion illegal would have stopped her? Also, could or did the difficulties she had in obtaining an abortion contribute to the lateness with which she did?
My Darn Snake Legs, while I’m sure minty’s got you tied up enough as it is, I’ve got one question for you. Since every act which puts sperm in or near the vagina has the potential to result in pregnancy, since no form of birth control is 100% reliable (believe me, I checked!), does that mean women should never have sex unless they’re prepared to bear a child? Since I’m not, should I remain celibate for the rest of my days, even if I do marry (OK, I admit that’s two questions.). With each partner I’ve had, I have used the most reliable form of birth control practical, and I discussed what would happen if I became pregnant before we had sex. I don’t plan on using abortion as birth control, and I will continue to do all I can to make sure I am never in the position of considering having one. On the other hand, sometimes things go wrong.
I’ve also read people objecting to the morning after pill because they consider it an abortifacient. From what I remember of high school sex ed, it takes a few days for an egg to implant itself in the lining of the uterus after it’s been fertilized. Ending ectopic pregnancies is also generally not considered performing an abortion, so I’m not sure the fertilized egg comes into play.
SnoopyFan, if your acquaintance did all that to have a legal abortion, do you really think making abortion illegal would have stopped her? Also, could or did the difficulties she had in obtaining an abortion contribute to the lateness with which she did?
Answer to question one: maybe. It’s not like she could have performed the PBA on herself. Maybe an extra 2 months would have given her time to stop freaking out and find a home for the baby. I’d also sure like to see the bastard who killed that perfectly healthy baby for the most disgusting reason possible (racism) rot in jail for a while.
Question two: No. She knew for months she was pregnant. She was in denial and panicking because her family is/was slightly prominent, and there was no way having a baby that was half black was going to jive with their social scene. By the time reality set in with her, it was too late to have one done in KY, thus why she went to Georgia.
I’m through talking about this. The thought of that baby being killed for that reason shoots my blood pressure up.
But… that IS illegal already. The current laws already prohibit abortions that late unless they are neccessary to protect the life or health of the mother. So it is the enforcement of the law in this case that is the problem.
I wish I had saved the report on this that I read, but it showed a miniscule amount of late abortions (none qualifying as “partial birth” which is as stated earlier not a medical term but a pro-life/anti-choice propaganda term), all of which were made because the mothers health/life was in danger.
Assuming that your anecdote is true it was illegal.
Some other things that I just had to bring up (haven’t slept for ages, first time posting here etc etc… ie: bear with me)
You say they become pregnant by their own choice. That would indicate that they have adequate sex education and access to 100% safe contraceptives. Not worrying about the fact that there are no such contraceptives, I can safely assume that you support sex ed in school and access to contraceptives (I hear not all pro-life people do).
Anti-abortion laws don’t work. Sorry, they just don’t. The only result of making them illegal is that you make a bunch of doctors and womens into criminals. In Poland abortion is illegal and many women die every year from botched abortions performed by everything from unauthorised doctors to family members.
If life is so precious that even an embryo must be saved, surely it must be a high priority to have good health care for everyone. I mean a small blob of cells are worth saving, how much effort shouldn’t the Gvt put into making sure everyone has good medical care no matter who they are.
The “slavery used to be legal” comments insinuates that legal abortions are a thing that should be phased out as an obsolete cruelty. In fact allowing abortions seems to be an indication of a countrys progress. In less developed nations it is illegal, and women are less (if at all) represented in the Gvt while in more developed nations it is legal and the Gvt is more equal. Slavery denied ethnic groups the right to their bodies, anti-abortion laws deny a whole gender the right to their body. If men were the ones getting pregnant abortions would be free, quick and painless I’m sure.
Gah… sorry about the poor english… second language and all. I’m looking at it and thinking “this does not communicate my meaning very well” but in my current state I can’t figure out what to do about it.
When she saw last week that Congress had passed the PBA ban, she walked into where I was painting the new baby room and, without the slightest hint of irony, went off on a short rant about how the bastards are just doing it because they’re afraid of letting women control their own bodies. It was all very cute. 
