So the only rights you afford a person, are their legal right? What if tommorow, the the constitution was amended and the right for women to vote was taken away? Would you support it since it would be legal?
And for those who don’t think that a baby 12 weeks or younger is a person, how do you respond to this?
From
http://www.fcws.org/development.htm
Day 20 - Foundations of the brain, spinal cord and nervous system are already established.
Day 21 - The heart begins to beat.
Day 28 - The backbone and muscles are forming. Arms, legs, eyes and ears have begun to show.
Day 30 - At one month old, the embryo is 10,000 times larger than the original fertilized egg – and developing rapidly. The heart is pumping increasing quantities of blood through the circulatory system. The placenta forms a unique barrier that keeps the mother’s blood separate while allowing food and oxygen to pass through to the embryo.
Day 35 - Five fingers can be discerned in the hand. The eyes darken as pigment is produced.
Day 40 - Brain waves can be detected and recorded.
Week 6 - The liver is now taking over the production of blood cells, and the brain begins to control movement of muscles and organs. The mother is about to miss her second period and has probably confirmed that she is pregnant.
Week 7 - The embryo begins to move spontaneously. The jaw forms, including teeth buds in the gums. Soon the eyelids will seal to protect the embryo’s developing light-sensitive eyes, and will reopen at about the seventh month.
Week 8 - At a little more than an inch long, the developing life is now called a fetus – Latin for “young one” or “offspring.” Everything is now present that will be found in a fully developed adult. The heart has been beating for more than a month, the stomach produces digestive juices and the kidneys have begun to function. Forty muscle sets begin to operate in conjunction with the nervous system. The fetus’ body responds to touch, although the mother will not be able to feel movement until the fourth or fifth month.
Week 9 - Fingerprints are already evident in the skin. The fetus will curve its fingers around an object placed in the palm of its hand.
Week 10 - The uterus has now doubled in size. The fetus can squint, swallow and wrinkle its forehead.
Week 11 - At this time, the fetus is about two inches long. Urination occurs. The face has assumed a baby’s profile, and muscle movements are becoming more coordinated.
Week 12 - The fetus now sleeps, awakens and exercises its muscles energetically – turning its head, curling its toes, and opening and closing its mouth. The palm, when stroked, will make a tight fist. The fetus breathes amniotic fluid to help develop its respiratory system.
No, I don’t think that the fetus has personhood, and therefore whatever rights it may or may not have do not outweigh my right to decide whetheror not i want it living in me.
Joel
You could come up with a similar list for an elephant or a kitten. Would that make either of them a ‘Person’?
catsix
Ah, but Joel did and from where I’m standing it seems that the meat of his hypothetical was there. In his hypothetical he is performing proactive actions to end a life. The parallels with abortion are obvious. Abortion is not merely the refusal to provide, it is the forced termination of a separate human life. These are two very different things entirely. Joel would be perfectly within his rights to refuse to provide for the infant on his doorstep by taking it to a shelter. However, abortion is far more akin to throwing the newborn in the trash to starve, or more accurately, throwing it in the trash compactor.
You are approaching this from the standpoint that the fetus has to be proven, to your satisfaction, to be a person before you even acknowledge it to be worthy of a fraction of your time. I, however, am at a loss as to why the very concept of personhood is relevant to this debate. Indeed, I’m unclear even on the specifics of its definition.
I do not feel you tackled his hypothetical head on because you didn’t state why you felt a fetus should have to fit within the arbitrary boundaries of ‘personhood’ before it could be viewed as anything more than a hassle to be disposed of. This is by no means your fault. The term personhood has been bandied about so much in abortion debates that it’s become customary to accept that the failure of an organism to meet it is proof positive that it is not human without questioning why this arbitrary benchmark even matters.
Well, none of my, beagledave’s, JThunders, Bob Cos’s, Il Topo’s or Joel’s arguments hinge on an arbitrary definition of personhood or any other artificial, pseudo-philosophical absurdity. At least, not as far as I’m aware (If I’m wrong, guys, please correct me. This is just what I’ve gleaned from your posts these last few weeks). For my part, I believe that a viable human life (that is, a human life worth protecting) begins at conception. There really is no need for such a concept as ‘personhood’ in pro-life philosophy. As such, your observation that “it’s still an unproven assertation that the fetus has the rights a person has” can only really be met with blank stares from me because at no stage during any of these discussions has it been made clear to me when and why we stopped talking about human lives and started talking about people.
In order to continue insisting that fetuses should have ‘personhood’ I think it would be a good idea for you to define the term precisely so we’re both on the same page. From there we can debate whether or not the term has any real relevance given the fact that unless ‘persons’ are human lives (not to be confused with human ‘life’ fingernails, kidneys etc…) pro-lifers aren’t interested in protecting them anyway.
Regards,
Ben.
I think that until your camp in this debate starts to acknowledge that there’s a sentient person whose health, life and mental state are a concern, we can’t go any further.
You have completely failed to acknowledge that the fetus doesn’t exist inside a vacuum, that the incubator you keep picturing it in isn’t really an incubator, it’s a human being. That person is sentient, can make decisions, and as such has rights recognized by law as a citizen.
What the arbitrary arguments of the anti-choice camp on this board hinge on is ignoring the woman whose health and livelihood will be affected, or possibly severely damaged, by their arbitrary pronouncement that a fetus is a person to and its rights automatically trump those of the ‘uterus’ it lives in.
That fetus doesn’t live in a uterus, it lives inside a person, and that person’s well being has been completely ignored by certain people on this board. If a viable human life is worth protecting, then my life is worth protecting. Instead of acknowledging that, I have been told by people who don’t know me that there is no risk to my life by being pregnant. That’s not something that the anti-choice contingent or a law can determine, to be quite honest. It’s something that only myself, my doctor, and perhaps my immediate family (if I have chosen to share that information with them) would know.
If you want to believe human life and ‘personhood’ begin at conception, that’s your philosophy. Without putting down solid objective evidence to the effect that this ‘personhood’ you’re defending is more important than me, you’re going to have to sit back and accept that the law’s not going to force me to live by your morals.
Since there’s no need for ‘personhood’ in your position, it remains clear that there will never, ever be a consideration for the woman whose life, health, mental health, and livelihood you’re deciding to risk. You have no clear and compelling interest to make that choice for someone else, and quite honestly I think that before you start to tell me what I won’t tackle head on, you ought to be prepared to explain exactly what consideration you’re giving to the women whose lives will be damaged, ruined or even lost because you decided they have no right to decide what risk is worth it with their body.
So how about it? Why is the fetus automatically more important than the woman?
JThunder, it’s really not a false argument. I myself was taking Depakote for bipolar disorder when I became pregnant with Aaron. Depakote is listed as a Category D drug, which means that it is known to cause significant birth defects and should only be used in pregnancy if the risks to the mother outweigh the risks to the fetus. Fortunately, I was able to stop the drug before any developmental damage took place, and my OB was aware of the exposure and was proactive in monitoring for birth defects. Even more fortunately, I was able to function without the medication. Had I not been able to do so, I would have had a lot of thinking to do about my ability to safely bear children.
In fact, it seems that Il Topo wants to give women exactly two options: Pregnancy and celibacy, with no good choices in between. Am I to deprive myself and my partner of one of the pleasures of a healthy relationship merely to avoid fertilizing an egg? And before you get too far into “contraception” versus “abortifacients”, here is an article by the Alan Guttmacher Institute about failure rates. I am not going to risk an almost 1-in-4 chance of getting pregnant (by using periodic abstinence) if there are alternatives available. Thanks to modern science, there are good alternatives that reduce the risk of pregnancy to close to zero. Some of them involve preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. I fail to see any difference in preventing an egg from implanting and a natural failure to implant.
Or, in the alternative, am I to allow my body to wear out prematurely from being pregnant constantly, suffer financial hardship caused by having to provide for my children, and not be able to give my kids the attention they deserve and need because I’ve got to spread it out among many children?
Finally, pregnancy is hardly a passive event for the woman. Her body must adapt to hosting a parasite (and that is what a fetus is). Her immune system must not reject it, she must nourish it, she must deal with temporary and permanent anatomic and physiologic changes, and at the end, she must endure the amazing physical demands of labor and delivery. Even though it is, for the most part, a temporary event, it’s not something to undertake lightly, and no woman should be forced to undertake it if she has choices. Whatever your beliefs about the status of the fetus, it still lives in the woman’s body, and the woman should have the ultimate say-so about what happens to it.
Robin
Ridiculous notion. If you look at even just my post in direct response to the OP…the web site I cited from Frederica Matthews specifically addresses the health, life and mental state of the woman.
**
Again ridiculous. In this thread and others similar to it…many pro life folks (including myself) have recognized that this issue is about “rights in conflict”. That means, that men and women do have “general” rights as regards to their health and bodies. We have also recognized, that this is a case where there are rights in conflict. Just because we are making the point (in regards to an OP started by a pro choice person) that the z/e/f has a right to life, does not mean we could care less about the woman in crisis.
**
(my underlining)
I note with some irony, that no pro life person on this board has used the term “pro abortion” to describe your position…even though some extremists in the camp might. Too bad you couldn’t extend the same courtesy.
:rolleyes:
**
Well. That kind of accusation deserves a cite. Which of the pro life members of the board actively involved in this debate have “completely ignored” the well being of the pregnant woman? Be specific. Name names, and point out how they have done so.
Ok, along with the list I provided, concider this:
According to the law of biogenesis all life comes from pre-existing
life. Each species reproduces after itself. Therefore, human beings can only reproduce other human beings.
catsix
Until this issue became diverted down the redundant path of ‘personhood’, surely this discussion was delving into that very issue? Personhood is a colossal Red Herring but, due to the amount of abortion debates on these boards, many regular participants in these debates spend their time debating the conflation of rights of the two individuals involved. The pro-life camp has to and does acknowledge the concerns of the mother and weighs them up against the life of the fetus.
We have taken them into account, and found that the life of the fetus supercedes them. Had we not, there’d be no debate at all.
Okay, I’m noticing the word ‘sentience’ coming up a lot. I just want to head this off at the pass by saying that pro-lifers don’t have any need to convince themselves a fetus is sentient in order to protect it. If you want to take this line of argument up you need to demonstrate why sentience is important. Anyway, you’re misrepresenting the issue. According to you, we either care about the fetus or the woman. Are you saying we can’t care about both, but one more than the other? I’d like to see your justification for that.
The threat of death from a pregnancy really is a small one. If you have special circumstances which make pregnancy dangerous for you then don’t expect us to know them. If indeed this is the case then I don’t suspect anyone on this board would object to you getting an abortion. I certainly wouldn’t if your or anyone else’s life was at stake.
Since the rate is very small (I’ve been trying to find out precisely how small but google is being uncooperative. I believe it is somewhere in the region of 12 per every 100000, but just think of that as an educated guess rather than a fact at this stage) then the rationale that it is worth pre-emptive abortion in the first trimester to stave off any risks of death from delivery is at best ridiculously alarmist and at worst down right fallacious. Of course, if you have medical evidence to support your decision, that’s different. However, assuming that you don’t, using this rationale would be (to quote JThunder who summed it up perfectly IMO) “like saying that some black people are murderers, so one should be allowed to take pre-emptive strikes against black people in general.”
Umm…I think you’ve missed the point somewhere down the line. We’re not defending “personhood”. We don’t care about “personhood”. I don’t even know precisely what it means since you’ve steadfastly refused to provide a definition. We are interested in defending human lives. Personhood is a pro-choice concept designed to make pro-choice arguments run with a minimum of conflation. Nothing more.
Firstly, my interest is a purely moral one. Why does anyone call light to any injustice which doesn’t affect them personally?
As regards the women, well, I can sympathise with their plight same as I can sympathise with anyone’s but I can console myself with the fact that their intended solution would have resulted in the death of an innocent party.
You are trying to frame this discussion in terms of one life, one body. This is misdirection. There are two entities involved and your last sentence should read “because you decided they have no right to decide what risk is worth it with their body ** and the body of the separate entity they are carrying inside them”** which makes it a lot less black and white, doesn’t it?
At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, there is very little excuse for getting pregnant by accident in todays world. It is common knowledge that the vast majority of unintended pregnancies are caused either by a total lack of contraception or by lazy and uninformed application. I find it difficult to side against the fetus when that would force my sympathies into the camp of women who would rather kill an innocent than take responsibility for the careless action** which resulted in the innocent’s creation in the first place. This is not to say I have no sympathy, however. I do think I have quite a lot, just not enough to tip the balance in their favour in my mind.
**I am perfectly aware that there are cases of contraception failing and, of course, cases of pregnancy through rape. These do constitute a small minority of the overall amount of pregnancies which result in abortions, however.
Who ever said we don’t recognize that a mother is involved?
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You’re right to what you do to your body should end at endangering the life of the unborn child. Unless your life is in danger.
Wow, you’ve completely ignored over and over again our statements, that if the life of the mother is endangered, then we understand the necessity of an abortion.
Wow, you want it both ways. On the one hand, you don’t want the government involved, but on the other, you defend abortion on the grounds that it’s legal.
Who the hell ever said that? All we’re saying, is that, once again, unless the life of the mother is in danger, there should be no abortion.
Joel
It’s still a category error.
Care to elaborate on that candida? It’s always kinda hard to glean complete meaning from posts that small 
Pretty good guess
(I assume we’re all discussing industrialized countries at this point…)
Ben Hicks
So, having dumped ‘personhood’, ‘sentience’ and so on, it seems that the anti-choice argument comes down to: “. . . the concerns of the mother and weighs them up against the life of the fetus . . . the life of the fetus supercedes them.”
On what particular basis?
Ben Hicks
The problem with adapting/adopting language as one goes along is that one can often end up with apples/oranges situations.
In what sense are Joel’s developmental stages part of a ‘set’ called ‘personhood’?
They’re proof that what’s being aborted is human life.
And oh yeah, the unborn isn’t a person. The same arguments used to justify slavery
http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/slavery.htm
Joel
That wasn’t the question.
Joel
No, that still won’t do, no matter how many tangental links you have up your sleeve.
I think you should take Ben’s hint and drop ‘personhood’.