Very well said. The utter indifference/inability to the question of what status unborn human life has or should have is why I stopped being pro-choice in my early twenties. I grew more and more uncomfortable the more I researched the issue and the reply from my pro-abortion friends was, “Well, who cares? That’s not the point.”
Yes. It certainly is.
Because, for one thing a “potential” human isn’t a human. “potential” is another word for “imaginary.” For another thing, animals don’t live inside of human beings.
I am interested in reducing human suffering. I do not believe that a human embryo can suffer (and 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester). I do believe that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy can suffer tremendously. I also believe that unsafe and illegal abortions are worse for society than legal ones.
I understand the moral ambiguity when it comes to older fetuses but third trimester abortions are a tiny fraction of 1% of all abortions and they are performed only for compelling medical reasons (often when the fetus is already dead). There is virtually no third trimester abortion which is purely elective (the pro-life scenarios of full term babies being murdered in utero does not exist in reality).
Having said that, I am on record as saying that if a woman really wants to terminate a late term pregnancy, then every effort should be made to induce a live delivery or remove the fetus intact. The woman has a right to get it out of her body, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be killed to get it out of her body.
Above addressed to Zev.
Diogenes-
Either that fetus is a parasite in a woman’s body and it is morally ok for her to remove it at any time or its a human life and it is not ok for her to kill it. Just becuase it starts to look more like a human or can now breath on its own doesn’t change anything.
I understand what you are saying. I understand that you are interested in reducing human suffering and that a fetus doesn’t have the label of “human” attached to it. But it doesn’t really address the questions that I asked.
The question that I asked was this: Why do we, as a society, seem to value puppies more than fetuses, to the extent that we get outraged at (and possibly, depending on the circumstances and local laws, start legal action against) those who kill puppies; but become blase about killing fetuses. Even if we grant your statement that a fetus is not human (a statement that, to some extent, I agree with - a fetus isn’t a fully-qualified human being until birth) should it not have some higher value than a puppy? But yet, that’s not how our society sees things, and that is what has me very troubled.
Zev Steinhardt
I think a puppy can suffer and a fetus can’t. It’s just that simple for me (and bear in mind that I attach no spiritual significance to a fetus. I see it simply as tissue. I know that others view it differently but I am not advocating that anyone should have to get an abortion).
I’ll also say again that a puppy doesn’t live inside a human being. The question for me is not why a puppy is valued more than a fetus, but why should a fetus be valued more than a woman.
For those who say that a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will…
I’m going to lay aside the issue of forcible rape, since pregnancies resulting from it are fairly uncommon.
Pregnancy results from a consensual act. The woman knew she could become pregnant when she engaged in sexual relations. She also knew that there was a possibility, however slight, that whatever birth control method could fail. Therefore, by consenting to sexual intercourse, she consented to allow herself to become pregnant.
A woman who decides she wants to have an abortion is essentially changing her mind after the fact, and deciding that she doesn’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions.
I find this reprehensible.
If she truly does not want to have a child then she has the ability to make the choice not to engage in activities that may result in pregnancy. If she is unwilling to refrain from those activities, then she can make the choice to double up on birth control (pill plus condom, sponge, spermicidal suppository, whatever) to reduce the possibility of pregnancy to practically nil.
But you don’t. You said so earlier. You said before that if at all possible (in a late term abortion) a live delivery (or extraction) should be attempted. In stating so, you are granting that the fetus is not mere tissue but has a potential for life that should, if at all possible, be preserved.
You don’t see (it seems to me) a fetus as simply tissue, but that which does have potential for independent life. And while I grant you that this may not apply to early-term fetuses, at some point during the pregnancy, you grant some form of “moral” value to it by stating that it should be preserved if possible.
We (or at least I) don’t. If it comes down to a choice of “one dies or the other” then the fetus loses - hands down, no argument. But we’re not weighing equivilencies here: We’re not judging the values of the fetus’ life vs. the mother’s life - we’re judging the fetus’ life vs. the mother’s happiness, or wealth, or whatever other reason she chooses to have an abortion.
My anology dealt with equivilencies: the puppy’s life vs. the fetus’ life. Under those circumstances (with regard to mother vs. fetus) the mother wins. But when we’re not dealing with the mother’s life, then we’re comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.
Zev Steinhardt
Cite, please.
Regards,
Shodan
treis, thanks for presenting your case in a well thought-out and polite answer. Unfortunately, I think we’re talking past each other about the same thing, yet coming to different conclusions… we both agree that the baby is THE most important aspect of any pregnancy. However, I think that entitles the baby to unending rights after s/he is born, which trumps any thing else (including our own personal desires, morals, etc.) and should be the only thing considered. Because that’s too large of a responsibility to take lightly and assume that we’re hoping for the best. So, I’d ditch my beliefs for realities for their LIFE. And no, I’m not talking about your average ordinary daily struggles and hardships. Into every life a little rain must fall, right? No, I’m addressing immutable problems like I’ve mentioned before; mental illness, abject poverty to the point of including immorality, being addicted or predisposed to certain illegal substances from the moment they see the light of day, ad infinitum. But we already knew my stance on that.
You too believe that the baby is pinnacle of importance, over ruling any feelings/desires of the mother and father, and the rest of society too, I suppose. We agree. Apparently, there is a disagreement though on how we interpret this and therefore carry it out to its conclusion. I understand where you’re coming from, I feel that’s a pretty normal and rather common idea, not just among Pro-Lifers, but also some Pro-Choicers as well. Sadly for me and my inability to explain myself very clearly, I think my view on the subject is pretty much different even from my ‘own’ camp. Leaving me swinging in the wind or going in circles, and undoubtedly not too very articulate with how to express it. So, perhaps I really should bow out of the debate. Let folks who have a more clear-cut opinion take the podium and explain the rationale. Besides, I don’t think anyone would miss me. 
You’re really the only member (besides that fellow who’s now banned) paying me any attention anyway. I definitely need to work on my GD skills. Again, thank you.
I am recognizing the reality of moral ambiguity in fetal development. For the vast majority of abortions, there is no ambiguity at all for me. It’s non-sentient tissue and that’s it. I also recognize that babies born prematurely are still babies, if a late term pregnancy can be terminated through premature induction rather than abortion, I’m all for it.
One of the problems with this whole argument is that both sides tend to want to sweep all fetal development into one category or the other. They argue about whether it is a baby or it isn’t when the reality is that “it” is not a static entity that can be consistently classified. In the early stages calling it a baby seems ludicrous. In the very late stages saying it’s not a baby seems ludicrous. At some point it becomes a baby but that point is so gradual and ambiguous that any legal line which is drawn has to be arbitrary. I want to be realistic about it. I recognize that a five week embryo and a 30 week fetus are not the same thing. A non-arbitrary line cannot be drawn so I would say that if it can live outside the mother than try to keep it alive. Once it’s out of the woman’s body, and it is no longer intruding on her rights, then it will acquire its own rights.
I don’t think that a blob of non-sentient tissue has any rights which need to be considered whatsoever. IMO, The right of a woman to eat pie is more important than the rights of a blob of non-sentient tissue.
And a woman can suffer from an unwanted pregnancies in many ways that don’t entail dying. If she can reduce or eliminate her suffering by terminating a pregnancy then I believe her right to do that supercedes the rights of a blob of tissue that can’t suffer.
I also want to emphasize that my feelings in this regard are directed at first trimester abortions. The earlier the better.
We’re not talking about a tumor or a cyst, or even a pimple, which, if left alone, will never develop into a fully functioning, sentient human being. We’re talking about a “lump of tissue” that, if left alone, very probably will become a fully functioning sentient human being. If you think, however, that the two are equivilant; that a five-week fetus is no different than a cyst or a wart, then we simply have to sadly disagree on that point.
Zev Steinhardt
My main problem is that I don’t feel that a child concieved by rape is doomed to mental illness and all of the other problems you mention.
I think you are stating your position fine we just look at this situation from two different perspectives. I am an optimist I think that the child go could on to have a normal happy life. You are more pessimistic than I am and think that the child is doomed to an unhappy life. What we need is some sort of hard data or a study. If a hypothetical study shows that children concieved by rape that are adopted and later find out how they were concieved have no increased risk to any problems later in life how would you feel?
But we do give rights to babies. Babies are certainly less sentient than an intelligent dog but they get these rights becuase they are a human life.
Ah treis, ya keep drawing me back in. 
I appreciate you cutting me some slack on my presentation, but I’m still pretty sure that I’m botching it up. But anyway, I’ll try again. Bear with me.
See, it’s that part where our misunderstanding comes in. I don’t think that they are “doomed” to a life of mental illness or even destined to encounter any problems at all. What I believe though, is that a known problem (outside of rape – how’d we get stuck on that particular scenario?) outweighs a possible happy life. IE: I have a mental illness and it’s been widely documented within my mother’s side of the family. I don’t really know about my father’s because he’s played absolutely no part in my life whatsoever, except to sign over the right to adoption to my step-dad when I was 12. So, under those deep-seated and long-ruing conditions, I’m pretty sure I inherited a lot of this. Extrapolate that out, and I think it would be irresponsible to pass that on to any potential children. For I know NOW that it is there. I do NOT know that they might have a happy life. The former is fact, the latter is guessing. I, IMHO, have to go with what is already established instead of gambling with what I’m hoping for. The reality versus potential is just not enough for me. Concrete evidence, now rather than later, wins the day in my heart.
I agree that some study or hard data would be awesome. And again, leaving the rape hypothetical out of it, if someone could prove to me that there’d be absolutely no way, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that something like mental illness couldn’t be passed on to future generations, then I definitely would feel differently. However, until that time, I gotta go with my own experience and that of too many others that I know.
Hope all that makes more sense this time. I could be just banging my head against a wall for all my lack of ability to explain myself in a cognitive (but not too verbose) way.
::: sigh :::
Practice, practice, practice, right?
That’s a very crucial IF. If that tissue is NOT left alone, then it becomes nothing. I don’t believe you can ascribe hypothetical “potential” characterics to something that exists NOW. An acorn is potentially an oak tree but you can’t make a desk out of an acorn.
I am not quite sure I am following you here. Are you saying that becuase the father is a rapist the child has a higher chance of becoming a rapist?
Concrete evidence of what?
And a fetus is not.
No, no, no. Like I said previously, can we please leave the rap equation out of it? I only responded to one (or two) specific posts about that and didn’t bring it up in the first place. And if it was a consideration, and the child once reaching the age of awareness (where ever that may be for each individual), they may indeed question if that is a possibility. Children of suicides, alcoholics, whatever, a lot of times wonder that it may be their lot in life to, so I’m assuming that it wouldn’t be very far removed from that sort of idea.
But again, foregoing the rape question, what I’m talking about is something exactly like mental illness. I really don’t know any better way of putting emphasis on my meaning. I’m apparently a real putz when it comes to this communicating thing. Anyway, I’m talking about things that the parent will indeed, without a doubt, pass on to their child. Do you follow me here?
See above. Mental illness, seriously debilitating birth defects with absolutely no hopes of normalcy or functioning autonomously, a long history of addictions (or being born with one) that seemingly can’t be overcome. That’s the best I can offer in way of examples. I hope it helps.
Otherwise, can anyone else (Dio perhaps) illustrate my position better than I’m doing? Because I’m failing miserably and surely someone much smarter than I gets what I’m at least alluding to. Any takers? Please help. I’m drowning here. I’d much, much, much appreciate the assistance and promise I’ll abandon GD forever if I’m too incomprehensible to post.
a fetus is not human? is not alive?
Ooooooooooh.
You’re asking if its ok to abort a fetus becuase you have somesort of genetic condition that you know will make the childs life miserable?