I think there should be a ceremonial, if not literal, opportunity for the new Mom to cut the cord and declare the newborn baby to be alive. If she says it’s not, it’s officially not, regardless of any assessments to the contrary that medical science might make. (she can avail herself of information that medical science is capable of providing her with, though).
Once she says it’s alive, it acquires the rights of citizens and is entitled to protections etc.
I believe I already said I’m OK with Roe v Wade as a compromise. RvW says the gov can restrict abortion rights to an increasing extent as the trimesters tick on, and by the time of birth the opportunity for abortion is long long gone.
Fine, then picture a person inside your body. The key factor here isn’t what’s inside your body, but that there is something inside your body and whose decision will it be as to whether or not it stays there.
I don’t see why you can’t say the same about owning a home. A certain number of the people who own homes are going to be broken into at some point; it is the risk you take when you make that decision. Certainly, you could make every effort to try and make your home as secure as possible; likewise, you could leave your door open to all-comers and make the analogy fairly unpleasant. I don’t see why you can’t play upon the idea; in both cases, the person has one outcome in mind whilst (presumably) knowing that another outcome is possible. Buy a house and you accept a probabilisitic risk, too.
It’s the fact that the fetus in question is already dead, will be dead soon and/or will kill the mother if it isn’t removed. “Partial birth abortion” is a right wing political phrase not a medical term; used because outlawing “removing dead fetus” or “saving a woman’s life” sounds harder to justify. People who oppose it are trying to kill women, even if they are too ignorant to realize that’s what they are doing.
But abortion rights extend beyond simple removal, especially if ‘personhood’ is established at a point after viability.
Picture this. Consensual sexual intercourse where the woman changes her mind mid event. There is a person partially inside her. She has the right for removal, but does she have any rights beyond that? I think it would be hard to argue that she also has the right to terminate the life of her partner, because the partner also has his own rights.
Or in the case of partial birth abortion (I don’t know your particular stance on this). The fetus is already being removed.
The right to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of the status of the fetus, seems to me to extend far beyond mere privacy and control of body rights.
There is no such thing as “partial-birth abortion.” The procedure called “intact dilation and extraction” is performed in the second trimester. Elective abortions don’t happen in the third trimester. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare, only occur for urgent medical reasons, and the fetus is usually already dead or dying.
The image of healthy, full-term “babies” being callously aborted by cackling “abortionists” seconds before delivery is pure, anti-choice, outrage fantasy. It’s no more real than Obama’s “death camps.”
I say it’s entitled to legal status as a person when it is no longer living in another person’s body. The woman (not “the mother,” since there is no child) is entitled to have it removed from her body. After it’s out, the state can call it whatever it wants. 99.99% of the time, it’s still going to be dead, though.
What if there is a premature ejaculation? Such as one the fiancé has when his gal says yea to his bended-knee proposal? Or one the hapless boyfriend has the moment they cross the threshold… into the drive-in?
Sorry, I just couldn’t [del]hold it in[/del] …resist!
When it’s out of her body (just so you know, the umbilical cord is no longer connected to the mother after birth, so it’s pretty much irrelevant too HER body if you cut it off the baby or not. The other end just comes out with the afterbirth anyway).
This is a bogus question, though, since abortions don’t occur in the 3rd trimester.
something like 1/16 of 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester – that’s not 1/16 of abortions, it’s 1/16 of a single percent.
Those very rare abortions are performed only for urgent medical reasosn, and the fetus is usually already dead or dying.
Elective abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in most states (Roe allows restrictions in the 3rd trimester), and there are only like 3 clinics in the US which will perform 3rd trimester abortions even then (it might be down to 2 now. Dr. Tiller was one of them, and he just got murdered).
The major problem with your question 1 here is that it counfounds decision-making. Suppose for a moment that the “quickening” (we’ll call it, to bypass the discussion of what we’re speificially testing) can happen at any point between month two and month 8. So, some women could in theory wait until the last minute, and some wouldn’t be able to, depending on when quickening happened. And you’d only know if you’d passed the point of no return if you did the test and found out it was too late.
So, what does this leave us with? Prudent people would have to always make their decision before month 2, to be sure, and you’d get a lot of other people who dawdled and then protested when the rug was yanked out from under them. To say nothing of the issues if the ‘quickening’ happened unexpectedly between the last test and the abortion, and somebody found out and decided to litigate…
To problematic. Better to make a single absolute rule and stick with that. Wether you arbitrarily set the cutoff at the average quickening time, before the earliest known quecking time, or one or two standard deviations before is, of course, up to the law makers, but in any case I think a fixed time that people can anticiapte and plan for is the best way to go.
As for 2 and 3, presuming we mean the fixed point rather than the unpredictable point, then yes and yes - barring health issues for the mother. There’s a difference between having the right to squat and the right to wreck the place.
In my opinion this comes down to the difficulty of removal without killing the person. If the woman can’t get them man to pull out, regardless of her protests, it becomes rape, and it might become arguable that extreme force to remove the intruder would be justified.
I personally hope that nobody’s serious about the woman having the right to “abort” right up to the moment the umbilical is cut.
That is not correct. A baby continues to draw resources from the umbilical cord even after it is born, even if it is breathing. The placenta itself does not begin to detach until after birth, and can take quite some time to actually do so.
I’ve seen three children being born, and cut three umbilical cords. The placenta detaches pretty much immediately. It’s immaterial whether the baby is drawing anything from the umbilical cord (which it isn’t really). The umbilical cord is drawing nothing fom the mother. It’s attached to nothing but hamburger, and it only takes a few minutes to discharge.
The actual differentiation only matters in the legal sense.
If you legally define any zygote with human dna as a person, then you have to provide that person with all the rights of any other person.
And since the inside zygote has no ability to represent its own interest, you have to have legal jurisdiction over the person inside of which the newly defined person exists. The state becomes the default guardian of the rights of that zygote. The state must exercise its authority over any woman who might have such a person inside of them. Procreation becomes a function of state authority.
Of course that is entirely acceptable to a fairly large percentage of the population.
