Even if it is a person, why do its rights trump the rights of the body it inhabits?
Only one of them is capable of making any kind of decisions, or understanding the related risks of the situation, so why should the law arbitrarily favor the other one?
If abortion were re-outlawed in the US, would the abortion rate return to its pre-Roe vs. Wade level?* I would say, no. Abortion has been legal for 30 years. Women are accustomed to being able to get abortions. Changing the law would not change anyone’s attitude. If abortion were re-outlawed, I think the women of today would be more likely to seek illegal abortions then were the women of pre-Roe vs. Wade America. And I think illegal abortions would be easier to get. Some of the pro-choice people would get right to work setting up underground clinics, and spreading the word about who to talk to if you want an abortion.
*Whatever that may have been. I don’t think we know. Being illegal, it was clandestine.
Because the law protects those that cannot protect themselves. Parents are obligated to take care of their children or they will be taken from them but the children must be delivered safely into the custody of the court. That means you cannot have an abortion because you endanger the life of another.
A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly,
recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. If the fetus is considered a human being (as this thread requires) an aborton fits the description of a homicide.
Of who?
A fetus that has no interaction with society, no place in it, and no value to it, but can severely affect my health a very negative way.
Put bluntly, I would consider killing myself if forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy seriously enough that the fetus, even without a physical medical condition, is a risk to my life. In the case of ‘it or me’, guess which goes?
“The pre-born child isn’t a child until an X amount of days” is the ‘pro-abortion’ argument. The pro-choice argument is that the answer to that question is a matter of opinion, and therefore should be decided privately, without government interference.
Nah, take out the ‘therefore’. Whether or not something is an opinion is not the litmus test for government interference in this country.
For the purposes of this thread, a fetus is a live human being at the point of fertilization (of which I highly disagree) Therefore, the fetus has all of the rights of a human being. The right to life would supercede the hardship of the mother. The debate would rage as to which life is more valuable should it come to the choice of mother’s life or fetus’ but as far as your reply is concerned, the value of life is not dependent on the contributions or interactions it has made to society. Given the opportunity, it may be able to contribute to the betterment of society.
If we follow your line of reasoning then it would be permittable to kill insane homeless people, habitual drug addicts and murderers and even some politicians and tobacco executives. The right to life cannot be taken without a crime committed and a fetus is as innocent as they come.
My question is why would you resort to suicide when you are “forced” to have your pregnancy come to full term? It would not be like you would be forced to raise the child. Adoption is still a very good option. Its nothing to kill yourself over. Your pain, dignity and comfort are not superior to anothers right to life.
I think what it really boils down to here, is when is the baby alive?
The medical definition of death, is the cessation of brain activity. Therefore, life would be defined by brain activity. Until the fetus has measurable brain activity, it cannot legally be defined as alive, by the medical community, and therein lies the Catch 22 of this whole debate.
Life according to the medical community doesn’t technically begin until there is brain activity. Take for example: someone who is brain dead. Their organs still work, they still breathe. But they aren’t living. The same applies to a fetus.
So, would abortion being legal for up to such a point, where the child hasn’t obtained brain activity be legal? Technically yes, because the fetus is a vessel as of that point. It isn’t living in the most technical sense. The fetus has NO RIGHTS until there is demonstrated brain activity.
Abortion up to such a point as to where the fetus gains brain activity? Legal.
Abortion after that?
More tricky. I’d say no. The time between conception and brain activity gives the woman enough time to make a choice.
Only in cases where the mother’s health is at risk, should it be legal in the 2nd and 3rd trimester.
Saying, don’t have sex, you are responsible for your sexual actions, is the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard. The fact of the matter is Shit happens. You may get pregnant, using all the contreceptives in the world. You may be walking home tomorrow, and be raped. Who knows?
There is no ‘pro-choice’ argument, just as there is no ‘pro-life’ argument. There are lots of different views, but there is no one argument on either side that all self-identified pro-choicers or pro-lifers agree on. I truly fail to see how people can look at both sides as a huge entity that all agree on. Both sides have numerous different views.
There are pro-lifers who make exceptions in certain circumstances, there are pro-lifers who don’t, there are pro-lifers who believe what they believe through religion, there are pro-lifers who believe what they believe through humanism. I’m sure there are many other sorts of pro-lifers that I haven’t even considered. Conversely, there are pro-choicers who hate abortion and think it’s truly evil but should still remain available for social reasons, there are pro-choicers who firmly believe it is just a ‘clump of cells’, there are pro-choicers who don’t care what the fetus acually is and only care for the woman’s POV. I happen to be a pro-choicer who agrees with the majority of the pro-life side in terms of the ‘value’ of the fetus, but disagree in other areas. There is no monolithic view-point for pro-choicers, just as there is no ‘one answer’ that all pro-lifers agree on.
Well, that’s the debate, isn’t it. I believe there is a justification, you don’t.
I agree. The woman would have to care very carefully for her child should she choose to take on that responsibility. Or she could exercise the same right that the mother of the two year old has in denying the use of her body. If she agrees to let the fetus use her body for nine months, but then harms it she has been negligent. If she refuses to donate the use of her uterus for nine months, the fetus may be removed and kept alive (if viable and technology permits) or, if the abortion is too early, unfortunately it will be killed. It is still the woman’s body to donate or withhold if she wishes. It’s a personal choice, a moral choice that has to be made, but not legally forced. I have already said I’m all for making sure that every woman knows that what she is doing is killing her living child by having an abortion. I’m not interested in covering up realities, just in making sure the fetus hasn’t any more rights than the hypothetically sick two year old.
That is the most ignorant thing I have heard. Shit doesn’t just happen. You do not trip and accidentally have sex. And rape is not an issue here. We have laws against rape, yes people brealk laws and commit rape. But it doesn’t just fucking happen. My God, what a dumb thing to say. Is that the kind of adolescent thing you would say to someone who gets aids because they were raped or a condom broke?
And has been stated about a dozen times here, by about as many people, what it really boils down to is in this thread we know when the baby is alive.
I apoligize to all, including alien. My outburst was almost uncalled for. And yes you touched a button, if that was what you were aiming at.
There’s no good reason to kill yourself. I know that as an objective kind of thing, logicaly. However, when it comes to the emotional trauma of being forced to go through pregnancy and delivery, I have a hard time not seeing any way out of it as being more attractive than the alternative. I don’t want children. That means I don’t want them at all. It doesn’t mean that having something out there with my DNA in it is OK as long as I don’t have to raise it, because quite honestly, it’s not alright with me.
I will not go through pregnancy or labor because doing so would disrupt everything I’ve worked for in life, which is to be a successful professional with the ability to pick up and go at any minute. I can’t do that if I’m pregnant. I will never take time out of my career for maternity leave, not a single day let alone a week or more. I will not give up being able to ‘hang with the boys’ drinking margaritas at the bar talking about x or y computer security issue and cut myself out of the loop. I will not risk losing my family. I will not go through the agony of being unable to take my meds. It’s hard to explain how painful it is when your immune system attacks your lungs, but I can tell you it’s not something I want to go through again.
I will not risk the chance that 18 years after being forced to carry a pregnancy I never wanted and bear a child I would resent it would show up at my door and proclaim me ‘biological mom’ with no regard to what effect this might have on my life. I won’t give up the smoking of a certain weed, or going to the firing range. I like my life, and having a kid whether I kept it or not would be the end of many, many things I like about my life. My career is my child of sorts, and to some other people that may seem empty, but it’s what makes me happy.
Pregnancy would emotionally devestate me. Having to continue it because someone else forces me to would put someone like me in the position that it’s the fetus or me, one of us will not survive. I doubt I would overtly take any action to kill myself directly, but I’d certainly be willing to risk death from an illegal abortion.
**
You know every time someone makes this kind of claim (and most pro choice folks don’t) I ask for a cite. I have yet to get one.
Still.
What the hell, for shits and giggles…since you claim that your reasoning is “according to the medical community”, I’ll ask for cites from members of said community.
Provide those cites (and they better say specifically that human life does not begin until there is brain activity, since that is your claim)…and it will be much easier to take seriously the arguments that follow from the premise. FTR, I (and others) have provided cites to the contrary, so I’m not asking you to do something that I and others haven’t done.
Are you game? Can you provide those cites? Or will my heart be broken…
again. 
It’ll take some time to provide the cites, seeing as I forget where to look, but the logic is, if death is defined as the cessation of brain activity. Therefore, life is defined as brain activity.
Thanks.
And just so we’re clear, I’m not asking when an organism becomes “human”
or when it becomes a “person”, or when it deserves legal protection, but when it becomes “alive”…which again, according to you…is only when it has brain activity.
I’ll be fascinated to see how exactly an organism gets from “no brain activity” to “brain activity” if it is not alive, growing and developing.
For that matter I’d like to see cites that there is some kind of consensus that life ENDS when measurable brain activity ceases. Makes cases like Pam Reynolds(google, it’ll encapsulate it better than I could) kind of a mystery doesn’t it? Death, by definition, is irreversable. Saying no measurable brain activity = death kind of falls apart when you consider cases where the person recovered after their brainwaves flatlined.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hmm… Well I looked a bit, and apparently there is no consensus as to the definition of “Being alive” or “life.”
However, I did manage to find a definition of death, but I’ll post it later, I’m getting kind of tired.
I remember that death is the lack of brain activity… So…
A person in a coma, has brain activity. A person who is brain dead, is dead. They have no cognitive functions whatsoever.
Therefore, wouldn’t the inverse be true for life?
Human life is brain activity?
Or maybe, Human consciousness is brain activity. Life itself is the body.
So then the abortion issue really becomes does killing a fetus kill a self-aware being?
No, brain death, as was pointed out, can be reversible, for example with hypothermia.
Well of course that’s not what I asked that you do…I asked that you offer cites (hell even one cite) from the “medical community” that supported your assertion.
I take it then, that you withdraw your assertion that "Life according to the medical community doesn’t technically begin until there is brain activity. " ?
I do realize that this is not true of all pro-lifers, but it seems to be true of many of them: they’re dead set against a number of things that would reduce the demand for abortion. If their primary goal was to reduce or eliminate abortion, they would be working for, not against, the following things.
> Research into and development of improved methods of contraception.
> Easy access to all forms of contraception for all who want it, regardless of age.
> Better, earlier, sex ed that includes education about contraception. Idealy, kids reaching the age at which pregnancies can occur should already be well informed about contraception. Next best thing: they should have easy access to this information. That is, they’ve been told where they can obtain this information.
Then there’s the French abortion pill. No doubt most pro-lifers see this as being just as bad as surgical abortion, so I can’t expect them to end their opostion to it. But how about morning after treatments? Do you really see a morning after treatment (taken as a precaution; the woman can’t know if it’s really needed) as being the same as abortion?
IMO, if a given pro-lifer is also against contraception and contraception education, his primary goal is not to stop abortion. His primary goal is the use of fear to keep unmarried women and girls from being sexually active. The pro-lifers’ oposition to the very things that would reduce the demand for abortion makes no sense – unless their real goal is to put a stop to recreational sex by unmarried women.