That’s right, if it hasn’t been removed yet it’s fair game. The rights of a human being outweigh the rights of a parasite.
Sure you do. You can extend protection to the unborn, regardless.
Besides, you can’t have it both ways. You can not, on the one hand, admit that this dividing line is arbitrary, and yet insist that this is indeed the point at which we should start to protect a living human being.
Heck, if this threshold is indeed arbitrary, as you claim, then why not set it at 30 days after birth? This would give the mother even greater freedom, as she will have additional time to decide whether to kill her offspring or not. This is, in fact, the position advocated by Princeton University’s infamous Dr. Peter Singer, who recognizes that there’s nothing magical about the mere passage through the birth canal. As a result, he believes that mothers should be allowed to kill their newborns, up to 30 days after birth.
A reprehensible argument? Certainly… but at least he’s consistent. At least he acknowledges that birth is an entirely arbitrary demarcation point, and carries that position to its logical conclusion.
So its rights depend, not on any intrinsic qualities, but on mere physical location? Even though the physical location does nothing to transform the organism itself?
A poorly reasoned argument, to say the least.
A 21-week-old fetus can survive outside the womb, yet by your logic, people should be allowed to kill the fetus as long as it’s done while this organism is kept hidden away within the mother’s body. This, even though physical location has absolutely no bearing on its status as a human being.
It does not have a right to live inside of a host. A woman has a right to decide what shall or shall not be inside of her body.
Besides, 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester and pretty much all the rest are performed in the second. there is no epidemic of ninth month abortions going on and that persistent debate is really a red herring. The more salient question is whether a woman has the right to terminate a non-sentient zygote before any legitimate ethical questions ever attach to the situation.
SnoopyFan, are you willing to pay their expenses, including time missed from work? Or, alternatively, are you and your husband willing to undergo this since you would ask others to? Also, as I noted earlier, some forms of contraception have a lower failure rate than both male and female sterilization, yet even multiplying two less than 1% chances does not result in no chance. I am not in favor of abortion, but I want it to be available and safe if it’s the least bad alternative rather than have it denied because doing so suits someone else’s morals.
CJ
To inject a new note here, I really, really don’t like the current labels that are used for people who are for or against abortion. They are too simplistic.
The following musings are my own perceptions, and may not be those of others.
Pro-life is used to refer to those who are against abortions, usually at any stage. Their reasoning is often based on religious beliefs. Sometimes refered to as “anti-choice”.
Pro-choice refers, in general, to those who favor legal abortion rights. Sometimes called “pro abortion.”
But the issue is more complicated than that. I myself am religious(a Christian). I truly believe that life begins at conception, and that an abortion kills a living being. Yet I can’t prove my belief concerning when life starts. And in any event I don’t believe the precepts of any religion, including my own, should form the basis of common law.
Abortion is an awful thing. But it should be available, safely and legally, to women in unfortunate situations who need it. I was raped once, when I was married. If I had turned up pregnant, should I have been forced to carry a child that may not have been my husband’s? I would have done so, as the poor baby would not have been at fault. But I would never presume to make that choice for someone else. An aunt of mine had Hodgkin’s disease while pregnant. Chemo would kill or seriously malform the fetus. Should she have been forced to refuse treatment in order to save the child? Even if chemo wouldn’t harm the fetus, a pregnancy at that time sapped the bodily resources she needed to fight her illness. What about her danger?
So what should I be called? I am against abortion but I would not legislate against it. Therefore I am willing to give people a choice. I am pro-life, I am pro-choice, I am anti-abortion.
BTW, I voted for Ross Perot the first time he ran for president. Not because of him, but because of what his running mate, Ret. Adm. James Stockdale, said during the televised vice-presidential debates. When asked his postion on abortion, he said simply “I believe that what a woman does with her own body is her business, period.” Great guy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Siege *
SnoopyFan, are you willing to pay their expenses, including time missed from work?
AFAIK, a vasectomy is an outpatient procedure and you can go back to work the next day. Same with most tubals nowadays. Why not do it on a Friday and rest over the weekend? Many doctors will accomodate patients and do procedures after hours. I find it hard to believe that they don’t want a baby, however they aren’t willing to shell out the money to see that it doesn’t happen. What is one day of missed work, at the most, plus the cost of the surgeries, compared to 18 years of raising a kid?
Or, alternatively, are you and your husband willing to undergo this since you would ask others to?
We’re not the ones saying we don’t want more children. However, when are done having kids, we have agreed we will both have it done. He doesn’t want to be an old parent, and I don’t want to have babies past a certain age, either. Plus I’m taking into account the possibility that I could be raped (after we’re done having kids) and get pregnant that way. Yes, it’s morbid, but I’d prefer not to go through being pregnant and giving a baby up for adoption, etc.
Also, as I noted earlier, some forms of contraception have a lower failure rate than both male and female sterilization, yet even multiplying two less than 1% chances does not result in no chance.
Find me a form of birth control that has a lower failure rate than both male and female sterilization used at the same time, okay?
Since there is still a miniscule chance that a couple who have both been sterilized can still get pregnant, they’re not going to do it at all? (\That’s like saying “well, I could still die in a car crash even if I wore my seatbelt, so I won’t wear it at all.” Are they even USING birth control? If so, why are they using a form of BC that has a higher failure rate than if they both got fixed if they are THAT serious about never becoming pregnant?
So you agree that the people who draw the line at implantation are crazy, right?
I’d also like to point out that getting sterilized isn’t the incredible breeze some of you seem to think it is. It’s an uphill battle to get sterilized if you haven’t had kids, especially if you’re under 30. Most doctors aren’t even willing to discuss the possibility, or to give you a referral to someone who might. I know this from bitter personal experience. So, since I can’t get sterilized, and even that’s not 100%, and I am completely unwilling to let my body be parasitized for nine months, I guess that means the responsible thing to do is never, ever, have any sort of sexual contact with my husband. After all, the right of a non-sentient lump of cells to parasitize me trumps my right to a healthy marriage. :rolleyes:
When a woman in my position is lookin at the possibility of a birth control failure, something’s gotta give somewhere, folks. And what usually winds up giving is the fetus. You want to actually do something useful to reduce the number of abortions in the world? Push to make it easier to get a hysterectomy.
For the record, I’ve never really gotten the whole argument that you have no recourse for birth control failure because you choose to have sex. I mean, if I eat contaminated sushi and get flukes, do I get to take anti-parasitic drugs? After all, I did choose to eat the sushi, even knowing that it could possibly make me sick.
SnoopyFan, my best friend is one of the most sensible, down-to-earth, practical people I know. Irresponsible is about the last word I’d use to describe her. In other words, you’d better believe she’s using birth control and the most reliable she can find. She and her husband also discussed this long before they got married. I don’t know what form they’re using, nor do I regard that as any of my business, and I certainly wouldn’t ask her for the purposes of blabbing it on a public message board. She’s a rather private person, and I may have given out too much information about her as it is.
The thing is, she’s also an engineer’s daughter. That’s one of the reasons we bonded back in high school and one of the reasons she, too, knows that so far we’ve yet to develop a form of birth control which can completely eliminate the risk of pregnancy. Reduce it to a margin which makes it far less likely, maybe even to the point where it’s level with getting hit by lightning, or, better yet, winning the Powerbal lottery, yes. Eliminate it, no.
Sometimes things go wrong despite one’s best precautions, and I hate it that that happens. I want there to be a safe, legal remedy if that happens. I don’t ask people to change their minds or declare abortion a “good thing”. I’m not willing to change my mind on this, and I certainly don’t consider abortion a “good thing”. As I’ve mentioned, in my ideal world, no one would ever need a divorce either, but there are times, too, when divorce becomes the least bad option and there have been places and times in which divorce was illegal, including Ireland until recently. While I may consider divorce immoral, I’m glad it’s legal, and I’d fight just as hard to keep it so.
I’m concerned I might be coming across as too harsh to you, and that’s not my intent. Lord knows I’ve spen too much time railing about the rudeness and bitterness on both sides of this issue to want to indulge in that myself. Still, I would like to ask you again why you expressed your anger towards the doctor who performed the abortion on your acquaintance, rather than your acquaintance herself, considering she was foolish and sinful enough to have sex with a man she wasn’t prepared to raise a child with. It seems to me like being angry with the judge who grants a divorce rather than the two people who, perhaps, never should have married in the first place.
Respectfully,
CJ
At about twelve years old. 
When does the fertilized egg become a human?
It starts when the pregnancy test is positive, other than that there is no real way to tell.
I think, once the Mother is “aware” that she is pregnant, that life inside her should have human rights.
P.S. - Most babies can`t “live on there own” for at least a few years after birth.
I’ve always thought this whole sacredness of potential human life thing means that every woman I meet ought to be obliged to have a quickie with me. 
No, seriously, that’s about how legitimate the argument seems to me.
Not crazy, but wrong. Yes, I do reject the notion that implantation should be the dividing line, as this stage has no bearing on the actual status of the zygote.
“Susitain life” and “Live on their own” are not quite the same you know.
Not sure what susitain even is.
You`re quite right though. Babies at various stages of development are able to sustain (with nursing). Including premies. So at what time during development should the term sustain (viable) come into play? At 6 months? 6.5? 7?
My first son was born at 2 lbs. 10 ounces. Ten weeks early. He was on oxygen for 3 days and a feeding tube for about two weeks - then nursed after that. Given the right environment, he sustained. Sustain is a pretty loose term.
Since the OP was directed towards PBAs we dont really need to go that far back. A baby developed enough to require the PBA as a procedure should have protection.
I don’t care, or have an opinion on when they can sustain life, I only thought it was important to point out that it is not the same as “live on their own”. You’d have to ask a doctor, my guess it is sometime between conception and birth.
And it’s you’re*, not you´re
You mean you’re?
How do you define “live on your own” and “sustain”?
I doubt anyone under ten could “live on their own” for very long.
When does sustain turn into living on your own?
Actually, I can.
I believe that a human life becomes worth protecting when it develops human consciousness- when it has a sense of self, is able to make choices based on something other than instinct, is able to process sensory information in a meaningful way etc. From what we know about humans and animals, this does not happen until some point after birth.
The life of a newborn does not at all resemble our lives. They cannot make sense of sounds and images. They do not recognize anything. They have no inner dialogue. They cannot make decisions. They can barely even control their limbs. I do not think this is a human life worth protected.
However, it’s a good idea not to go around killing things for no reason. It is good for society to have a healthy respect for life. So I’m going to draw the line a little low- at birth. The idea that we shouldn’t kill things that have been born seems reasonable and maintains a culture that respects and values human life while understanding the practical concerns of a pregnany woman.
even sven, do you realize that your argument can form the foundation for any point of restriction one could think of? You think even newborns are undeserving of protection, and having conceded that, you choose birth as a point where one can restrict abortion.
However, one could re-write your post reinserting any other point of restriction and the argument is as strong (or weak)–e.g., the point where we should ban abortions could be viability, or conception, or whatever, and the argument you make would be consistent with that stance, IMO. If the state has a compelling interest in maintaining a “healthy respect for life,” then conception as a point of restriction would serve the same goal.
So, you are indeed proving JThunder’s point that an arbitrary point of restriction is, well, arbitrary. You are likewise, I believe, demonstrating that a pro-life position is reasonable, even if you would hold it was equally arbitrary.
Sustain as in sustain vital life functions… such as breathing… live on your own would, I assume, mean being able to do complicated stuff like eat.
And a big “AHRG!” at the messed up *** :SMACK: