So is pre-natal care.
You can’t have it both ways. If you are not responsible to care about the end result of someone elses pregnancy, then it also not your responsibility to care about their pregnancy or termination of.
Exactly. I think actually we’re in agreement here - the government has no legal obligation to do anything, but they would have a moral, ethical, and practical obligation.
I don’t know. I don’t have enough information about this machine to form an opinion. It is true that I would consider the fertilized egg is a person, and that life must be respected and protected under the law.
I believe that we live in a society that is utterly selfish, but I did not say that all pro-choicers are utterly selfish. If I left that impression, I am sorry. I do believe however, that abortion is an inherently selfish act, as it is most often practiced.
**
There is something else I would like to add and to clarify: Selfishness and sincerity, anxiety, good intention, and even agony are not mutually exclusive.
My sarcasm, or lame attempts at being clever or humorous, may leave people with the impression that I consider all women getting an abortion to be trollops who are capriciously and carelessly ending human lives so they can get out and have more sex with strangers. That is not my view, and if any of my quips have left that impression, than I apologize.
Still, in my view it is possible, and common really, for a woman to be sincere, well intentioned, consider her moral compass, agonize, and still make a decision that is inherently selfish. It is my view that abortion, as it is usually practiced, is a selfish act**
I would agree with this with an important distinction/clarification.
For the PLer items second, third and fourth are just as important (or they should be!) and they are only irrelevent to the extent that they can’t be used as a basis to end the life of what they consider to be a human being.
I think you are at ground zero with this statement.
A few other posters have said this in one form or another, with varying levels of specificity. I’ve also said I thought we were talking about the wrong issue. Since then, I’ve refined that to we’re taling about the right issue, but in the wrong order.
But along the way I found it interesting. I think it would be good to discuss this whole question of when [human] life begins, but before that I would like to share my impressions what the thread (and similar threads)have suggested.
I want to get into the specifics of the question **“When does Personhood begin”
** although the last few pages have left me with some very distinct impressions that I think need to be clarified. We will get into that in due course, in the meantime I would like to summarize the last few pages, and what apears to me to be a fair amount of inconsistencies and disagreement. (while never discussed)
The PLer believes that the human life continuum/life cycle looks something like this:
Now the PLer sees this process beginning at conception, progressive and not static at any point. They see no distinction that would allow a fetus to somehow “less human” than an infant, any more that a toddler is less human than an adolescent or young adult.
Further, the PLer sees that sentience, mental and physical prowess, mobility, communication, and the like will ebb and flow during the life cycle continuum, (by many factors other than the aging process, including disease or injury)and don’t make any living person any less human.
•••••
Now I would imagine the PCer sees the Human Life Continuum in much the same way; with an important distinction. The distinction is that there must be some other [objective] criteria that establishes us as humans. While there are some important distinctions between an infant and an adult, they do in fact share more similarities—liking a beating heart and the ability to survive outside the womb— than an infant and a zygote.
The current laws use various forms of ‘viability’ to determine when a fetus can be aborted and when it can not, including situations in which certain fetuses may be deemed ‘viable’ by the doctor during the abortion process, in which efforts must be made to save the life of the fetus. E-Sabbath posits that the Roe decision established life (‘viability’) as beginning [roughly] when you can feel the baby move. WhyNot has an excellent post that gives you a concise scorecard as to how the abortion laws are spelled out, state by state.
I think it would be helpful if we could add some clarity and certainty to the discussion as it relates to the point in which “personhood” begins. For most PLers such clarity exists: The point of conception. For the purpose of this discussion however, it is not necessary to have all PCers have unanimity as it realtes to this “point”, for I won’t make any division between one “point” or another. From WhyNot’s post, North Carolina’s defintion is as good as any. For the purpose oy my posts the end of the 20th week is the point that Human Life, or Personhood begins.
Now certainly not all PCers, including the intelligensia here at SDMB, are in unanimity as to the point in which personhood begins, although it would certainly appear that the majority would apply some ‘viability’ test of some sort,—thereby establishing some “point” after which a fetus is considered a person in their view.
My thoughts are directed at this majority; a majority I would add is reflected at SDMB and among the whole population, and to which Roe is written for.
Here at SDMB there are a pretty fair amount of people who would allow abortions much later than the 20th week. Here are a few examples:
Stonebrow apparently believes that life begins at conception but believes that the mothers rights (whatever they are) “trump” the life of the fetus, *at any point during gestation. *
Blalron apparently believes that a heartbeat isn’t enough, sentience must be the standard.
jsgoddess apparently places no value on the fetus and doesn’t care much about it’s destruction.
msmith537 apparently is in favor of abortion until the “63rd trimester.”
catsix apparently believes abortion should be “available at any point.”
So I have some questions for the majority----specifically the 20-Week Pro-Choice Dopers: (if you answer this post, please take the poll and answer in the same fashion as the thread Poll on the SDMB community, answering the bolded questions and “snipping” out the rest) **The poll is exclusively for the dopers who are “20 week” PCers.
**
1) If Catsix, using her only as an example, had an abortion in week 28, has she committed murder?
2) If you answered “yes”, she has committed murder, and focusing only on her situation and not to use it as an example to outlaw abortion, would you say that in as much as pregnancies after 20 weeks are concerned, you have a greater commonality with Pro-Life people than [non 20 week] Pro-Choice people? Why/Why not?
(if you answer “no”, please ‘N/A’)
3) If you answer “no”—and yet you recognize the 28 week fetus as a “person”—why do you believe she hasn’t committed a murder? (if you answer "yes to #1, please N/A)
4) Regardless of how you answer #1, should she be prosecuted? Why/Why not?
5) Is it fair to say that your views mirror those who are Pro-Life after week 20? Why/Why not?
6) Generally speaking PLers see all fetuses as persons, at conception while 20 week PCers make this distinction at 20 weeks. The PLers (on average) allow abortion for a person only for rape/incest/mother’s health. Would you agree that abortions for [post 20 week] persons should be restricted to rape/incest/mother’s health?
7) If “no” to #6, what specific allowances for abortion would you make for a [post 20 week] person?
8) What is your general view towards the PCers who advocate “abortion at any point?” How does that differ from your view towards PLers?
9) To the extent you believe a fetus becomes a person at 20 weeks, what is the basis for that belief? (i.e. viability) To what extent are your views influenced by your religious views?
For the nuance challenged, “20 Week” is an arbitrary number for the purpose of clarity. It doesn’t really matter if your number is “26” or some other means of establishing your criteria for “personhood.” (i.e. viability)
If it’s all about saving the babies, then the people who think it’s their duty to save them ought to be compelled by law to step right up and adopt them, no questions asked, no backing out, no exceptions made for origin or medical condition of the baby.
Then we’d soon see who’d be willing to put their money where their mouth was.
Good post.
You know they say you can’t legislate morality. There are armies of tax attorneys whose sole mission is to game the tax system and avoid taxes [in a marginally legal way.] Ever see just how many US companies are incorporated in tax havens? (or their subsidiares)
As to “risk” I am certain that some women (couples) are risk averse. It may be entirely practical to consider an abortion due to fear of death of the mother.
Others may use this as a loophole and make decisions that do not reflect their true feelings and push for an abortion based on an imagined risk, or a risk that is truly insignificant to them—but serves as ground cover for a child they do not want.
Still, I think it reasonable that the legislation have some reasonable langauge as to what circumstances “qualify” for abortion, even if that means that some risk is “imposed” on the woman. Most activities carry some risk–like getting in a car or airplane or going to the dentist. That’s life.
And the fact is, a woman choosing to have sex is accepting a whole wide range of things that may endanger her life. It’s a little disengenuous to say later that you have an abnormally low appetite for risk after behavior that belies that claim.
What that standard should be, is another debate entirely.
True enough. Choosing to have unprotected sex when pregnancy is a very real threat to your life/health is showing an awfully big appetite for risk. But that doesn’t mean that a woman who would be endangered by pregnancy or childbirth should have to live a celibate life. She should use the most effective birth control she can and use it correctly. But on the off chance that her birth control fails, she shouldn’t have to risk death or serious injury because she dared to have sex.
raindog, if your wife found out that having another child would put her at great risk, would you be willing to give up your sex life? Would she?
I’m not married, so my wife is of the hypothetical nature. You don’t give me much information—not something thats’s easy in a casual MB conversation. But given the limitations of what you present, I would say that my wife’s life is more important than my sex life.
I’d also say that there are many ways to mitigate risk and ,vasectomy, hysterectomy. birth controls etc can lessen risk substantially. There are also other ways for people to express themselves sexually that wouldn’t endanger the life of a woman. That’s likely anathema to a society that considers witholding sex akin to witholding oxygen.
So I think you’re painting a picture of a bogeyman that doesn’t exist, or is as rare as BigFoot. At any rate, are you proposing that a million babies each year lose their lives so some infinitesimal percentage of the population enjoy an active sex lives?
I’m not a “20th week” PCer, so while you’re getting answers, the raindog, could I ask again your reasoning for believing that personhood begins at conception?
Wait a minute–I thought you had two daughters. Were they hypothetical or are they illegitimate?
And how would you react to something like this?
Nope, I’m proposing that the option must remain open at the very least for women who are in extreme situations with their pregnancies (risk of life/health, rape, incest). We live in the real world, and, as several other posters have pointed out, people aren’t going to stop having sex just because it may lead to unwanted pregnancy. If that were a deterrent, people would’ve stopped having sex a long time ago.
I don’t know.
I do know that it’s not germaine to the issue of abortion, except in a tangential way.
But enough so that we might see this link again…
Of course, I suspect that your scenario is highly unrealistic; or at least not nearly as pervasive as we might imagine. (Given all the ways that remedies and accomodations can be made)
And I agree with you in part/principle—abortion should be available for a woman who’s health/life is in imminent danger, or if inaction will cause death.
I don’t agree as to the issue of rape/incest. As horrible as the trauma is, and a constant reminder, I don’t believe that trauma, in an of itself, is a compelling reason to take a life.
(at any rate, I can’t see the “we can’t help ourselves” rationale as a compelling reason to kill unborn children)
How would you feel if his parents had had an abortion?
First I want to see how many people are interested/willing to answer my questions.
It kind of summarizes the tone and substance of the last several pages.
I fear that I’ll be answering questions from all quarters, and I’m having a hard time keeping up as it is.
The answer to your question will obviously take a lot of thought and time—and that’s even after all the mindless name from those with nothing intelligent to contribute. 
I’m very much intersted in continuing, and discussing that specifically.
Let’s see who how many have the gumption to answer me.
Yes, I too would like to hear the answer to this?
Why would we, when you won’t answer ours ? Discussion is a two-way street.
I don’t know really.
The problem with this type of discussion is we don’t have all the information.
To the extent that I know, I would say that it is not acceptable to abort a baby who doctors have determined in the womb has birth defects, if those birth defects are not life threatening. If the fetus in the womb is a child, you wouldn’t abort it any more than you would smother it in the crib.
The link you provided suggests that this baby does in fact have very real life threatening defects, and death is even likely, without extraordinary medical intervention. (I don’t know to what extent the mother was at risk)
I think that decision is between the parents and their doctor and the state has no compelling interest in taking an active role in the fetus’s medical care. If it is the opinion of highly qualified medical professionals that this fetus has a high likelihood of death, the state needs to step back.