Should abortions performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy be a crime?

[Gomez]

Tonyj

Interestingly, convention states that age begins with birth, age being a measure of life, and thus life begins at birth - not conception.

I recall reading that it is common for Japanese people to start their age from their conception. could be apocryful but even if it isn’t, why should mere social convention override the scientific evidence that a fetus is a human being?

Though an unborn baby is not a hand, it’s not necessarily a human yet, either.

It most certainly is a human. This is verifiable through scientific observation. See this link

Since pro-choicers (educated one’s that is) have to concede now that the fetus is a human, pro-choice arguments generally now hinge on whether or not the fetus is a person. Pro-lifers, however, are mystified as to why that term is necessary in this discussion.

How is the baby apart, an individual deserving of individual rights;

It has a separate genetic code, therefore it is a unique individual. INdividuals should be protected.

Why does the carrier not have rule over what it carries;

Because it is the carriers fault (for want of a better word) that the carried exists, and the carried is a human being. It’s not like having a mole removed, there are certain ethical considerations.

and what reason is so powerful as to override the two previous, via the law?

1.2 million human beings are being killed each year via abortions. To put that into perspective, try counting to 1000 and see how long it takes for you to get bored.

[Gomez]

I recall reading that it is common for Japanese people to start their age from their conception. could be apocryful but even if it isn’t

Should read “Could be apocryful but even if it is…”

Sorry.

[candida]

Or even ‘apocryphal’, I expect.

[catsix]

catsix says that a baby is a person.

On the contrary, I do not accept the position that a zygote, embryo or fetus incapable of survival without attachment to the placenta is a baby.

Babies breathe air, they ingest food and digest it with their stomachs, they excrete urine and feces through their urethras and anuses.

Zygotes don’t do ths. Embryos don’t do this. Fetuses are only capable of doing this after about 20 to 22 weeks of gestation. Prior to that, the fetus, embryo or zygote is a part of the woman’s body, therefore its existence in her body is goverend by her alone. After that point, as I have stated before, so long as the anti-choice camp would be willing to agree to a final compromise, I would not oppose a ban on elective abortion. I would leave room for an exception in life-threatening cases (ecclampsia, toxemia) or cases of fetal deformity that make the survival of the fetus impossible (anencephaly, hydrocephaly).

As for JThunder, since I have taken emergency contraception, which you have considered an abortifacient, and you have called all abortion the ‘murder of an innocent human being’ or the ‘killing of a baby’, you have accused me of killing a baby. So, JThunder, are you standing behind your belief that all abortifacients and abortions are murder? Because if you are, you’re calling me a baby killer.

Which is it going to be?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

MEBuckner
I think (almost) everyone is eager to avoid the logical implications of the “Z/E/F=baby” equivalency, so they invent specious and rather patronizing arguments about why the mothers can’t possibly be held responsible

This could easily read as a statement by a pro-lifer at a convention of NOW. “inventing specious and patronizing arguments” for those wishing to avoid the " logical implications of the “Z/E/F=baby” equivalency" suggests an illegitimate response by “everyone” who doesn’t apply the murder label to the mother as you assert as follows

Abortion is almost always much more like murder than manslaughter (except that, in my opinion, the “victim” has nothing like the ethical status of the victim of a murder or manslaughter).

Always?

I don’t believe that pro-choicers are deliberately avoiding “Z/E/F=baby” equivalency , or that their arguments are specious and patronizing. If I did believe that then I wouldn’t be able to support pro-choice at all.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by catsix *
On the contrary, I do not accept the position that a zygote, embryo or fetus incapable of survival without attachment to the placenta is a baby.

No, but as I pointed out, the dictionary does. Which should we accept as having the more authoritative definition?

**
Babies breathe air, they ingest food and digest it with their stomachs, they excrete urine and feces through their urethras and anuses.**

FULLY BORN babies do that. This does not mean that babies in general do.

**
As for JThunder, since I have taken emergency contraception, which you have considered an abortifacient, and you have called all abortion the ‘murder of an innocent human being’ or the ‘killing of a baby’, you have accused me of killing a baby. So, JThunder, are you standing behind your belief that all abortifacients and abortions are murder? Because if you are, you’re calling me a baby killer.

Which is it going to be? **

catsix, that is not the same as calling you a baby killer. I pointed out that abortion is the killing of an innocent being. This is not the same as calling you a baby killer, so don’t pretend that they are.

There’s a difference between, say, pointing out that someone’s statement is false and calling that person a liar. The first is a mere statement of fact; the latter is (or can frequently be construed as) a judgment on that person’s character.

I do NOT go around calling women “baby killers” because I recognize that many of them are troubled women who suffered from a lapse in judgment, often due to frightening circumstnaces. Just as I will not call someone who occasionally lapses into falsehood a “liar,” I will not refer to women who sought abortions as “baby killers.”
Again, your claim wasn’t that I considered your actions to be morally objectionable. Rather, your claim was that I called you a baby killer, which I most assuredly did not.

[MAV]

*Originally posted by catsix *
**Fetuses are only capable of doing this after about 20 to 22 weeks of gestation. Prior to that, the fetus, embryo or zygote is a part of the woman’s body, therefore its existence in her body is goverend by her alone. After that point, as I have stated before, so long as the anti-choice camp would be willing to agree to a final compromise, I would not oppose a ban on elective abortion. **

If there is some event that occurs “after about 20 to 22 weeks of gestation” that magically transforms this fetus, embryo, or zygote from a clump of cells not unlike a tumor (“part of the woman’s body”) to something else, could you please outline the physiological aspects of this magical event? Before you do that, however, could you pin down the exact point in time this happens so that we will have a hard reference point from which to decide when elective abortions can no longer be performed?

[JThunder]

Also, could you please cite some medical reference which says that it is indeed just “part of the woman’s body”? The two entities may be physically connected, but that does not mean that the smaller is part of the larger person’s body.

[MAV]

Yes, please do! I need to understand how a woman can possibly have the inclusion of a Y chromosome in the cellular makeup of ANY part of their body.

[TonyJ]

The semantics are overwhelming! @_@ Forgive my relaxed vocabulary. I suppose I meant “person” and not “human.”

What’s the difference? Well, if a human is just the “stuff,” but a person is something in addition to that, then there may be rules that apply to each individually. Do ethics apply to a human being? No more than to any animal, I would think - but how ethics applies to a person is something different, which is indicated by development of complex social rules.

My train of thought has derailed. =\

As to the other points…
I’d mentioned the convention of life/age beginning at birth merely because it’s something - not that it’s was right, it’s just an anchor of sorts, and maybe examining it may lead to clarity.

In a sense, defining things by a dictionary is just as problematic, as that’s only just a really, really large consesus at best, but not an absolute truth. It’s something akin to a large social convention.

I see now that an unborn baby is unique and individual. The next question is why-- the baby being totally dependent-- the carrier does not totally govern it.

The numbers don’t sway me, right or wrong. Technically (and I’m being absurd, here ^_^), 100% of all life is “aborted” by nature. I’d like to know why a hundred million aborted babies, let alone one million, is a problem at all.

Also:
Catsix was called a baby-killer implicitly; JThunder made the mistake of leaving marbles on the ground, and Catsix made the mistake of walking on them. (Though one should be careful with their marbles… ^_~)

Didn’t catsix explain the event taking place 20-22 weeks? I wouldn’t say those capabilities are magical. Either way, looking for a hard reference point is certainly not easy - and maybe impossible! But does the absence of an absolute threshold mean an absence of validity? … well, maybe…

Anyway, the child is a part of the woman’s body. Why? As far as I know, if you separate the two, the child will die; that is, the child is not independent of the woman’s body and cannot exist independent of the woman’s body, and is thus a part of it.

[JThunder]

Sigh. For pity’s sake.

What if someone were to say, “The activity that you engaged in falls under the category of prostitution.” Can you honestly not see the difference between that statement and saying “You are a whore!”?

:rolleyes:

[MAV]

*Originally posted by TonyJ *
Didn’t catsix explain the event taking place 20-22 weeks? I wouldn’t say those capabilities are magical. Either way, looking for a hard reference point is certainly not easy - and maybe impossible!

I would say it’s certainly impossible, which was the thrust of my line of questioning.

But does the absence of an absolute threshold mean an absence of validity?

Yes, it does, because the argument that abortion is okay as long as you’re not terminating the life of a human being HINGES upon the absolute reference point, or threshold, at which the life of that human begins. If there isn’t a hard and fast point in time (certainly not the two-week timeframe given previously) that this “thing” becomes a human being, then there’s no way to tell whether you’re terminating the life of a human or a tumor. All I’m asking is that someone give me that reference point so that we can begin discussing how to address the issue henceforth.

**Anyway, the child is a part of the woman’s body. Why? As far as I know, if you separate the two, the child will die; that is, the child is not independent of the woman’s body and cannot exist independent of the woman’s body, and is thus a part of it. **

It can most certainly exist independently of the woman’s body. It can exist in any number of women’s bodies. So can the woman’s heart, liver, kidneys, etc., but the difference is that the internal organs will forever carry the genetic makeup of the woman from which they came. The child has it’s own genetic makeup that makes it unique, and thus not part of the woman’s body.

[MEBuckner]

Grienspace it wasn’t the “pro-choicers” who I was accusing of avoiding the logical implications of the “Z/E/F=baby” equivalency. Go back and read the thread again.

[TonyJ]

*Originally posted by JThunder *
**Sigh. For pity’s sake.

What if someone were to say, “The activity that you engaged in falls under the category of prostitution.” Can you honestly not see the difference between that statement and saying “You are a whore!”?

:rolleyes: **

Of course there is a difference; the phrases and tone are not identical! There’s a little logical trickery going on here. If you add in the piece, “People who prostitute are whores,” then you have a logical equivalence that creates a major premise for a syllogism. Now if a minor premise came along that was governed by that major premise, then a conclusion could be made!

So, apparently that’s what happened. Apparently you said that (1) emergency contraceptives are abortifacients, and (2) abortion is baby-killing. So you have your major premise, and along comes the case of Catsix (3), who’s had to use emergency contraceptives, is thus governed by the major premise, and becomes the minor premise. Follow it all the way and it becomes a simple syllogism concluding that Catsix is a babykiller.

Is this what you meant to say? I doubt it! Does what you said imply this? Yes!

[TonyJ]

*Originally posted by MAV *
…the argument that abortion is okay as long as you’re not terminating the life of a human being HINGES upon the absolute reference point, or threshold, at which the life of that human begins.

Definitely. I’m wondering more of when a human becomes a person. Even that approach is problematic on my side, though…

All I’m asking is that someone give me that reference point so that we can begin discussing how to address the issue henceforth.

Yeah… but that’s something of a “right until proven wrong” stance. Just to play devil’s advocate, what’s wrong with a person doing anything to anything in and of their own body? See, I use the “birth” threshold because at that point the child is most certainly not fully dependent on a mother and is separate from her.

The child has it’s own genetic makeup that makes it unique, and thus not part of the woman’s body. **

:smack: Yes, but I was getting at a different meaning of “part.” I apologize. I meant “part” as in “piece of the puzzle,” a piece that is individual and yet only exists as a part of something else.

What I’m getting at is that if an unborn child can only exist by a mother, then that mother – carrying the burden of said child – should be able to govern it as she wills. It’s a bit draconian toward the child, yes, but if the mother doesn’t want to bare it and no one wants to either, I don’t see why a mother should be forced to nurture it and bare it and give it up for adoption.

So if there’s a way to transfer the little bundle of cells to someone who wants it, then I’d go for that. If not, I feel it’s a toss-up between abortion and adoption.

Of course, I wouldn’t give up the right to abort a life-threatening pregnancy. That must be guaranteed.

[catsix]

I do NOT go around calling women “baby killers” because I recognize that many of them are troubled women who suffered from a lapse in judgment, often due to frightening circumstnaces. Just as I will not call someone who occasionally lapses into falsehood a “liar,” I will not refer to women who sought abortions as “baby killers.”

Let me assure you, JThudner, I had no lapse in judgment. I knew exactly what I was doing then, knew it was the right decision, carried it out, and I still feel it was absolutely the right decision for me to make. The only suffering I did was at the hands of people who stood in my way and tried to force their beliefs on to me.

So, in your eyes because I took EC, that means I killed a baby but you won’t call me a baby killer? Is that how your logic works?

Would you also say that someone who smokes cigarettes isn’t a smoker, someone who uses drugs is not a drug user, and someone who gambles is not a gambler?

Again, your claim wasn’t that I considered your actions to be morally objectionable. Rather, your claim was that I called you a baby killer, which I most assuredly did not.

Well stop the wagon then, because obviously if you find it morally objectionable it better be illegal! What you personally find morally objectionable because of your religious belief or whatever personal motivation you have isn’t at issue. I don’t care one whit whether you find my actions suit your conscience. Your conscience doesn’t look in my mirror every morning.

What matters to me is that you have made a series of statements that imply me to have done something illegal (murder), and that while you’ve danced extremely close to whatever fine line there is in your head between ‘taking an abortifacient is killing a baby’ and ‘catsix is a baby killer,’ you want to be given credit for not going over it?

You admit the only reason you won’t be that direct is that you seem to think I had a lapse in judgment, and this is somehow supposed to make it OK that you push the bleeding edge of flat out calling someone a baby killer? Sorry, JThunder, but that cuts no slack with me.

It’s almost as if you have admitted you do think that, but you’re being smug with your ‘Oh but I would never say that out loud.’

It can most certainly exist independently of the woman’s body. It can exist in any number of women’s bodies. So can the woman’s heart, liver, kidneys, etc., but the difference is that the internal organs will forever carry the genetic makeup of the woman from which they came. The child has it’s own genetic makeup that makes it unique, and thus not part of the woman’s body.

Fine with me. Take the embryo out, intact, in week five of gestation. Let it go about existing independently of the woman who doesn’t want it, do whatever with it, that’s irrelevant to me. What’s relevant is that if a woman doesn’t want it in her own uterus, it doesn’t belong there.

So if there’s a way to transfer the little bundle of cells to someone who wants it, then I’d go for that. If not, I feel it’s a toss-up between abortion and adoption.

And who gets to decide whether her uterus is used as an inucbator? The woman whose uterus it is, or some legislative body who has nothing to lose?

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by MsRobyn *
**Well, having been pregnant twice, you can add my insight into it.

While I enjoyed being pregnant, knowing that I could give birth to abnormal child was a constant source of worry. I had no idea until the 26th week of gestation that Aaron was all right. Blood tests don’t always give a complete picture of fetal development, so it’s entirely possible that I could have been carrying a damaged fetus.

While I respect those people who can parent a disabled child, especially a child with the disabilities I described previously, I know I am not one of them. Having lost a child previously, I was not (and am not) willing to give birth to a child, only to see it suffer and languish. I had to watch my older son essentially wither away until he died in my arms. Am I being selfish to only want healthy children? I think not. I want each of my children, both that one living, and future children, to enjoy life and all of its possibilities. A lifetime of medical intervention, special institutions, therapies, surgeries, and so forth is, to me, not enjoying life.

As I said previously, I don’t see any dignity or nobility in allowing such a damaged child to be born. Likewise, I don’t see those who take such a position as JThunder as allowing women the dignity to make these choices for themselves. It’s not about preventing an act, it’s about the life behind the act. And to me, a life spent suffering is not a life at all. Sorry.

Robin **

Yes, the fear of giving birth to a child destined to die a slow, agonizing death, with no hope of a cure is a legitimate concern.
I guess that’s all I have to say for now. Every time I start to type something about how even a disabled or diseased child deserves the same chance to live as a healthy child does, I’m worried that whatever I type seems to come out either as rude, or insensitive. So…

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by catsix *
**No.

What matters to me in terms of my uterus is that it remains unoccupied. **

In all seriousness, ever concider a hysterectomy?

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by candida *
**Joel

This is in reply to your Friday post.

I have no interest whatsoever in what you are thinking or whether you know what you are thinking, yourself.

Whatever you are thinking, whatever you think you are thinking, what you are effectively arguing for is social control of women’s bodies, realities and lives - the infantalization of women, in fact.

From the moment of a conception, in your scenario, I would become infantalized, unable to make choices within the society I live in.

In a personal sense, Joel, I’m anti-abortion but pro-choice. I know that I wouldn’t choose to have an abortion - though what a candida who, to take an extreme example, had seen her husband and children murdered and then had been raped by the attackers, would choose to do might be another matter, I cannot know that.

Notice the use of the word ‘choose’, it’s something I do or would do and, since I’m affluent enough to afford to make that choice, whatever change there is in the law, it will remain my choice and never yours or anybody else’s.

That Joel, is, to me, the whole point. I am not prepared to have your morality, whatever that might be, imposed on my right to choose, myself, to have, or not have, an abortion. **

My point was, in previous posts, you’ve told me over and over again what my “real” agenda is. You seem to be implying that I’m a liar, in that, I really don’t believe in what I’m saying, and that I have some sinister ulterior motive behind my arguments. That’s what I objected to.
And as to the forcing or morality, that argument is as ridiculous as saying that telling people that they can’t kill, steal, or commit fraud is imposing morality, and therefore those laws are wrong and should be overturned.

[candida]

Joel

My point is that it doesn’t matter (and certainly does not matter in any way to me) what your subjective position is.

What does matter is what the effect of your position would be objectively and that effect would be in line with reactionary political groups.

Your suggestion that complaining about the imposition of morality is ridiculous is both trite and trivial. Citing a few laws that correspond to your moral position does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that all law should correspond to your moral position. Why should I want to live in a Christian theocracy, nevermind in a Joel-determined theocracy?