Yes, provided that there was some time in their life earlier that they existed as concious entities.
ElbaliavanU please show how killing a fetus = homicide?
We are talking about the Fetus being considered a baby even 1 second after conception, when it is still a single cell moving towards the womb. I susspect many so called pro-choicers are strongly against the abortion of fetuses that have reached a stage of development where they have a chance of living outside the womb, and some (like myself) would be against abortion once the fetus has developed a significantly functional brain; in all cases but the most dire medical reasons.
ElbaliavanU, are you working for an NGO?
And the point of this thread is to discuss the implications of saying that a fetus is a baby. As others have pointed out, you’d have to name the fetus for records. YOu’d have to record the conception the way we record a birth.
Parents could get tax credits and stuff like that. File for extra social assitance. In cases of devorce you’d have to figure out custody.
So, now that you’ve joined our little thread, perhaps you’d weigh in on your thoughts of what would change in society if we defined a fetus as being a baby and entitled to all the things a baby gets.
ElbaliavanU please show how killing a fetus = homicide?
We are talking about the Fetus being considered a baby even 1 second after conception, when it is still a single cell moving towards the womb. I susspect many so called pro-choicers are strongly against the abortion of fetuses that have reached a stage of development where they have a chance of living outside the womb, and some (like myself) would be against abortion once the fetus has developed a significantly functional brain; in all cases but the most dire medical reasons.
Why do people get e. coli? Because they ate hamburger. Do you think eating hamburger was a torture for them? If they were forced to eat it, yes. Then I could understand why they would be upset about the e. coli. But if they ate hamburger willingly, they should have considered that they might get e. coli then. If they didn’t, they should just accept the fact that now they have a living being inside of them.
We don’t force people to suffer the results of their innocent actions in other cases. Why is sex different?
If you want something even closer: Should we treat a woman for STDs? She had sex knowing she could get an STD. She should just accept the fact that she now has syphillis, right?
Julie
Sounds good in theory. But what do you propose for mothers who don’t love being pregnant? Do you deny that they exist?
Ah, “pro-life as punishment” rears its ugly head. You had your fun, now it’s time for you to pay the piper!
It might also grow up to be the next Hitler. Does that mean she should abort it just in case? :rolleyes:
It’s good to know that somebody has a direct line to The Truth and can therefore easily dismiss any other viewpoints. Some of us had to think long and hard to reach our current positions, and some of us are even foolish and weak enough to admit that our personal truth is not true for everybody. Silly of us, huh?
What is homicide is a matter of the law. According to current laws, abortion is not homicide. You may believe that it should be, and I respect that point of view, but as the situation stands, abortion is not homicide.
DNA is not the only factor in determining what’s part of a person’s body and what isn’t. Take a look at this link:
But identical twins aren’t living in a single body. Neither is a fetus or embryo (or ‘unborn child,’ if you want to call it that) simply living in a woman’s body; it’s using that body as a life support system. It’s building itself from that body.
No, being pregnant shouldn’t be a torture or a burden. It should be quick and easy: stick the sperm in, watch your belly swell up, then pop a kid out–oh, let’s say a month later. There shouldn’t be any pain, either. And while we’re at it, let’s make pregnancy consensual, too–pop up a little ‘Would you like a child? Yes/No’ message to any potential mothers to be, sort of like in the computer game the Sims.
But that’s a fantasy. In real life, many women don’t want to spend nine months being pregnant, then give birth to a child. Some of them would rather die. Others might go through with it if they absolutely had to, but it would be a miserable experience, and that miserable experience would pervert any chance they had of having a loving experience with pregnancy later. Rape victims often have trouble relating sexually to people after their trauma; I wouldn’t be surprised to find that women who’ve been forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term have trouble accepting that a wanted pregnancy is a joyous thing.
It doesn’t help to tell them that they should love the unborn child growing within them. Should isn’t is, and no amount of saying will make it so. Some women simply don’t want children. Others want children later in their life, but not now. If I became pregnant now, as a teenager with lots of life decisions lying in front of me waiting to be dealt with, I would certainly abort. Say I do give birth in this situation: what’s the result? Sum total: one destroyed life (mine) and one new, unwanted life waiting in adoption services to see if anyone does want it. Now, say ten years from now, in my late twenties, I accidentally become pregnant. Say that, additionally, I have a steady source of income from a partner, and that I can quit my job or take maternity leave from it without driving myself into poverty. Also, say that I feel myself capable of taking care of a child. Then I’d most likely give birth. I’d be able to experience the joyful aspects of pregnancy as I wouldn’t be able to now. I’d be able to bring a new life into a world where it’s wanted.
Cite? (I’m willing to believe this, by the way–it makes sense that an unmarried woman would be less likely to be able to support a child, financially and emotionally. But I’d like to see a cite, all the same.)
I also know, just from reading the comments of childfree posters to this board, that some women are either married or quite willing to get married when they find the right man, but they most emphatically do not want children. It simply isn’t the right choice for them–they have no desire for children, no desire to become pregnant, and no desire to be a mother.
If you’re going to argue that sex before marriage is wrong, start a new thread for it. It’s hardly something that can’t be disputed. Plus, saying that it “only brings heartache” is an overgeneralization. Anyone who’s had sex before marriage and not suffered ill effects care to post? A statement like that can be disproved with a single example.
Don’t throw out strawmen like that; nobody here has claimed that they support the right of a woman to have an abortion “5 minutes before birth.” Assuming that’s hyperbole and you mean it to refer to all late-term abortions, it’s still questionable; supporting a woman’s right to an abortion doesn’t necessarily mean supporting a woman’s right to an abortion once the fetus has become viable. At that point, I’d be willing to concede the necessity of limits on abortion.
As for your question, a good look at the development of a fetus is in order. I’m using this page for reference. In the first trimester (that is, the first three months), it’s not even a fetus yet–it’s an embryo. Its developing heart doesn’t begin to beat until sometime in the second month. At that point, its head has barely started forming; it doesn’t even resemble a baby in its shape. It doesn’t start to move until the third month, which is also the point where its spine and internal organs begin forming. At this point, there’s some resemblance in shape to a baby. In the fourth month, the arms and legs are clear enough for fingers and toes to be counted. In the fifth month, all major organs are formed, although not finished developing. Toenails and teeth form; hair becomes visible. The fetus’s movements can now be felt. In the sixth month, the fetus responds to loud noises and music. The end of the sixth month marks the end of the second trimester. At this point, there are still some differences between a fetus and a baby, but they’re not as obvious as the earlier ones, and it’s less important to point them out, since, as I said, I would be willing to concede the necessity of limits on abortion at this point, especially once the fetus is viable, because at that point, it no longer relies on the woman’s body for life support.
I have thought about it, and not just casually, either. I only reached my current position after a lot of consideration.
Blalron, you are getting really good at crafting definitions of rights and life so that no matter what, abortion is permissible. Never mind that the distinctions you continue to draw aren’t meaningful. Why is prior consciousness important? Because otherwise we couldn’t have abortions. Excellent example of circular reasoning.
Can you cite source on the 1 in 3 figure? Seems a trifle high to me.
Actually, does anyone has a cite or reference on the percentage for miscarriages? I would love to hear an actually figure quoted some where.
I suggest the following situation:
Its a cold night, you invite a homeless person into your house. The next day you force him to leave. He dies that night. Is that murder?
When a fetus becomes a person is not relavent. No one has the right to live at another’s expense.
What these abortion discussions have forced me to do is think about what makes killing wrong, and what makes an individual human worthy of protection from harm.
I can’t go with the argument that possessing human DNA, in and of itself, makes an entity a unique individual worthy of protection. If human cloning becomes possible, every cell of our bodies could potentially grow up to be a unique human being. But that’s what those cells are, potentials. They are not actuals.
Since defining personhood by DNA fails, I am forced to conclude that what makes us as individuals unique and worthy of protection must be our conciousness, our unique sense of self. Our identity. “I think, therefore I am”
After coming to this conclusion, I have another consideration: We all have to sleep for about a third of our lives, and during this sleep state we are not concious. Why can’t we kill somebody when they are asleep? Because the already have an identity that can be destroyed. The personhood of Bob Cos exists even when he is asleep. Humankind feels an injury when he is killed, because that identity has been extinguished forever.
Going back to our human cells and cloning example, if I kill a red blood cell I have killed a potential human identity. But humanity doesn’t feel the injury, because no actual identity ever existed. We can go into speculation as to what loss may have occurred here, but nobody can be sure what that loss was.
However, there is no speculation as to what loss would occur if I killed Bob in his sleep. Everybody who knows him knows what has been lost.
ronbo
Which of course means abortion up to birth event (at least) would be groovy.
And I’ve seen plenty of other folks say similar things (such as …it didn’t matter if it was David Letterman inside the uterus…location was the only thing that mattered)
I don’t know what percentage of “pro choice” folks feel that location is the only issue, and who feel that development doesn’t matter. I’ve seen quite a few expressing that opinion here on these boards though…with nary a peep of objection from “pro choice” folks who say that stages of development do matter.
Here is one Cite
Originally from PDR Guide To Women’s Health
OTOH, this source claims 15% miscarriage rate in general population.
This says 15-20 %
As does this one.
And this one.
FWIW I’ve always heard the figure 20% (as a ceiling) tossed around…30% seems high IMHO.
Who says we can’t? The reason it’s illegal is because we don’t all individually want to have to set up heavy security, carry weapons, and arrange for our own and our loved ones’ security, when it’s easier to pass a collective law, hire law enforcement, specify punishment, and whittle potential killers down to those willing to do the time or the chair, go on the lam, or plan very very hard. We as a society decide which killings we want to be against the law. At the moment, abortion isn’t one of them.
When I use “can’t” I don’t mean the definition of can that implies ability to do something, I’m using the definition of can used to indicate possession of a specified power, right, or privilege.
Blalron, I have never heard anyone argue that sleeping turned one into a non-sentient being, one whose killing could be ethical. And that’s not what we were discussing before. We were discussing entities who had no brain activity, flat-liners, so to speak.
So, if a “brain dead” adult who will recover (e.g., a patient with hypothermia) cannot be ethically destroyed, why doesn’t this apply to a fetus? That was the question. As for this…
**…why is this distinction important, except that it permits abortion? Would you permit the murder of a hypothetical hermit, a survivalist you stumbled across in the wilderness who has no contact with the world? Do you prohibit any abortion where someone in the world would feel a sense of loss–say, if it was felt by the unborn child’s grandmother? And if you answer with, “Not if the mother disagrees,” then please don’t advance arguments that you yourself feel ultimately carry no weight.
Well my point was that I don’t believe that the reason we can’t legally kill a person is that he has an identity that can be destroyed.
Alright everyone. Now that I’ve joined, I guess I have to argue with everyone against me…
Yay!! 
Blalron: “If human cloning became common, and the fetus had exactly the same DNA as the mother, would she then have the right to choose?”
I would say no. Even if it does have the same DNA, the person is not depending on the “source” for support, so, in essence, it is another human being. I don’t even think cloning is right in the first place… God is the only one who can create people without taking a DNA sample from the mother… But that’s a different topic.
ConnieS: You have some very good ideas. I like the way your mind works… Unfortunately there are some ideas that you might not quite understand…
“What is homicide is a matter of the law. According to current laws, abortion is not homicide. You may believe that it should be, and I respect that point of view, but as the situation stands, abortion is not homicide.” Yes, according to laws made by humans, abortion is NOT homicide. That is unfortunate for the unborn babies who NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO LIVE. Whether you know it or not, or believe it or not, or just think that I’m some psycho throwing all my “ideas” at you- abortion is wrong. Ask God when you die… We’ll all know the truth then.
Julie: I understand the point you are trying to make with the hamburger thing. But do all people who eat hamburgers get e. coli? No. Do all women who have sex get pregnant? No. Do all women who do get pregnant get abortions? No. I don’t even know what e. coli is, but I’m pretty sure that not as many people get it when they eat hamburgers as women get pregnant when they have sex. It is different from having sex because there are vegetarians out there. And I know that there are people who don’t have sex. But if you had a hamburger with e. coli you could throw it out, and it wouldn’t be considered homicide. Why? Because it isn’t alive!!!
Yes, the woman should just accept the fact that she has syphilis. She should have considered the fact that she could get it before having sex. I am assuming she wasn’t married because wouldn’t you and your partner go to a doctor to see if the other person has anything before you have sex?
You reap what you sow, Julie, good or bad.
Emacknight: Have you ever considered that the woman might have a miscarriage? Then all that work for custody and all the other stuff that you did would be for NOTHING. That’s why you should wait until after the birth of the child to do all of those things.
Mr2001, what are you talking about? Do I deny that they exist??? OK then… A mother doesn’t HAVE to enjoy being pregnant, but she should make the best of the situation.
Yes, that baby could grow up to be the next Hitler. I did think of that, I don’t know why I didn’t mention it… But you really should give the baby a chance. It’s not fair to just “assume” what it will be- cure for cancer, or Hitler. That’s why we need to give the babies a chance.
“Ah, ‘pro-life as punishment’ rears its ugly head. You had your fun, now it’s time for you to pay the piper!”
You reap what you sow.
I hope I answered all the questions
Until next time…
That doesn’t make sense. Would you “make the best” of a broken leg, or pneumonia?
Do you not realize that pregnancy has severe physical effects, and that it results in a person who has to be supported, physically and emotionally, for 18 years, or that not everyone wants to go through that?