quote:However, 5% of the millions of aborted women is still very many women.
We're still working with a hypothetical, even imaginary, number at this point.
And since not everyone involved in this discussion does think that abortion is in fact "baby-killing," insisting that it IS baby-killing is pretty much on par with PL's earlier comments.
Of course, we could ALSO just mentally preface all the posts in this thread with "in my opinion, which is not necessarily backed by anything resembling fact," but that'd be too much work.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for being a little high school kid, then by so labeling yourself and by engaging in admittedly high-schoolish behavior...is there a reason people shouldn't treat you like an immature teenager not worthy of an adult's helping of respect and attention? A reason why you should not be treated as someone who wants to say rude things addressing points not made, and weasels out of it?
Yes, there is. I'd say it's the same reason we should still respect all the other people (including many adults) who act in a similarly rude manner.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And since not everyone involved in this discussion does think that abortion is in fact "baby-killing," insisting that it IS baby-killing is pretty much on par with PL's earlier comments.
I did ask earlier how small an unborn child has to be before it is no longer a baby, but rather is just a mass of cells. Nobody answered - but I don't see the point of any other discussion on the abortion issue before that question is answered, because that really is the question upon which the whole issue rests. If nobody gives any reason for why they think one collection of cells is a person and another isn't, then there really is nothing to debate about. All we'd be doing is shouting out conclusions at one another, without doing anything to examine where the disagreement comes from.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody answered - but I don't see the point of any other discussion on the abortion issue before that question is answered, because that really is the question upon which the whole issue rests.
While I agree with you, I also think the possibility of getting universal agreement on that point is nil -- so, if abortion is going to be addressed by society at all, we must find a way to discuss the issue without coming to agreement on that point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I call it baby-killing because abortion is a generic term, which could mean many things. Calling it abortion marginalizes it.
As Tresopax said, many questions asked in this forum have been sidelined by rhetoric, and some responses (if not answers) would be appreciated.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And since not everyone involved in this discussion does think that abortion is in fact "baby-killing," insisting that it IS baby-killing is pretty much on par with PL's earlier comments.
I did ask earlier how small an unborn child has to be before it is no longer a baby, but rather is just a mass of cells. Nobody answered - but I don't see the point of any other discussion on the abortion issue before that question is answered, because that really is the question upon which the whole issue rests. If nobody gives any reason for why they think one collection of cells is a person and another isn't, then there really is nothing to debate about. All we'd be doing is shouting out conclusions at one another, without doing anything to examine where the disagreement comes from.
I'll float one definition out there: group of cells with sufficient organization to have formed a functioning Reticular Activating System. This is a basic level of organization of the brain (very basic), and the lack of its functioning is equivalent to "brain dead."
If I recall correctly, the fetal brainstem develops in the 7th to 9th week of gestation, and although the RAS development would take longer, I think that would make a viable demarcation point. I'd look at the functioning RAS as a necessary but not sufficient condition for personhood, resting on the development of the brainstem as a necessary but not sufficient condition for a functioning RAS, so -- we'd be erring far on the side of way too early a cutoff if we made it at 8 weeks. Way, way on the side of conservative, but it's a start.
And, of course, over half of legally obtained induced abortions in the US occur at less than or equal to** 8 weeks, with more than 80% at less than or equal to** 13 weeks, per the CDC.*
--------
FToaS, I have taught college courses in bioethics for many years (not currently, though), and I have given about an equivalent number of As to students who wrote from pro-life or pro-choice positions. That is just to say that I have seen many, many arguments and debated things from both sides.
I understand that you are passionate about this topic. I encourage you to be as scrupulous as possible about being exceedingly correct in the facts you cite, as -- in my experience -- this is the single greatest indicator of someone who cares enough about a subject to study it very, very seriously.
Good ethics starts with good facts. If you get the facts wrong, it sends out a message that you might not have thought through much of this yet in a substantial way. Then again, maybe you have -- but if you've been working with misinformation, it's harder to give you the benefit of the doubt in your logic and reasoning habits.
------
*[forgot link: latest MMWR I can find is the pdf here at the CDC] ------
**changed from > to "less than or equal to" (software won't let me put the typical change notation in brackets)
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: 0.05*Approximately 46 million =Approximately 2.3 million women left sterile each year due to abortion.
*gently
FToaS, I still think that 5% is a grossly exaggerated number. Your cited website is using data from the 1970s and 1980s, and -- even if it was correct at the time -- it is extremely outdated now. You can recheck the eMedicine article previously linked, if you like -- it reflects the current state of affairs.
You see, open heart surgery complication rates were muuuuuuch different way back then, and one wouldn't judge the current procedure complication rate on what was happening 20-30 years ago.
quote:I call it baby-killing because abortion is a generic term, which could mean many things. Calling it abortion marginalizes it.
As Tresopax said, many questions asked in this forum have been sidelined by rhetoric, and some responses (if not answers) would be appreciated.
Well, not so much "rhetoric" as "accurate information." "Rhetoric" is a style of speaking, often use to inflame or excite passion in others. It seems to me that it is not the responses to you that have been focused on rhetoric.
We can discuss this here -- really, we can. And your viewpoint can be honored and respected for what it is. I think, though, that engaging with someone very impassioned means having more than one conversation at a time: there is the formal one, and then there is the implied subtext of respect or disrespect. It is exhausting to try to engage productively on both fronts with someone who is not actively engaging in productive effort for each from the other side.
[Edited to add:
*grin
You're a teenager. You have energy we old fogies can only dream of! You also have a lot of new ideas and interesting perspectives that make for stimulating and intriguing conversation. But please understand, if the tenor isn't fairly calm, careful, and level-headed, some of us may not have the time and energy to engage with you.
That's okay, of course. But it's bound to happen.]
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution.
I highly doubt that's the case. If it's ever happened, it'd be murder. According to everyone. But I suspect it's pure invention.
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: And what about the risks to the mother?
What about them? You aren't actually concerned for the mother at all, so why pretend you are?
If the mother's life is in danger, you'd still prevent her from having an abortion. You aren't about "pro-life"; you're about anti-abortion.
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I could go on and on, but no one cares what I say anyway.
Not when you're screaming, no sir, no one does.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FToaS, one last caveat for now, as I have to return to work -- in order to assess the comparative repercussions of induced abortion versus attempted carrying to term, one would have to compare the rates between women who had induced abortions and those who attempted to carry to term. You might find that the infertility rate (or rate of other major negative sequelae) for the latter is actually higher, and so you'd find yourself promoting an argument for your opposition.
I don't think that's a bad thing, mind you. If the point is an important one, it shouldn't matter which way it weighs out in the end. Accurate information is what underlies robust ethics, and more accurate information can only be a good thing.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I would say that baby-killing is too broad a term for this discussion, as there are many instances of killing babies that have nothing to do with medicine, future sterility or Roe vs. Wade.
But whatever floats your boat.
Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people who didn't want babies managed notto get pregnant in the first place. Here's to hoping *lifts glass of OJ*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people who didn't want babies managed notto get pregnant in the first place. Here's to hoping *lifts glass of OJ*
posted
I wish that I had handled yesterday with the aplomb with which you guys are handling Toad today
Toad, I have just spent a good deal of time chiding several pro-choice people for having dismissive and overly aggressive attitudes and making factual misstatements. It is more irksome than I can express to have you come in and do the same thing on my side of the argument. To be fair, I should be just as strident with you as I was yesterday. Whether it is my sympathy with your position, the fact that I am tending sick children, or the patience already displayed by Bob and CT, I just lack the energy and motivation right now.
Consider yourself chastened.
CT, I had thought the brain stem developed around 6 weeks, thanks for letting me know otherwise.
Bob, I never felt you were being dismissive, just not choosing sides, which is understandable when you are trying to calm both sides. I, on the other hand, tend to to take more of an offensive approach. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: What about them? You aren't actually concerned for the mother at all, so why pretend you are?
If the mother's life is in danger, you'd still prevent her from having an abortion. You aren't about "pro-life"; you're about anti-abortion.
SL, I've clearly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, it is the mother's right to live. When someone has sex, they take the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant, don't partake in the action that is designed to get you pregnant. In the case of rape, it still doesn't give you the option of killing a baby.
CT, would you kill a brain-dead child if you knew that it would awaken and be healthy in a few months?
Alright, I'll tone it down a bit.
Here are some questions.
1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
Now can I get some answers?
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Now can I get some answers?
Explain World War II. Use both sides of paper if necessary. *grin
I have my paid work to do right now, FToaS, but I will try to return to this later. Could you perhaps pick one and only one question which you want to tackle first? That, and an explicit explanation of what you want from an answer to that question (an overview, links to detailed information in other cites, merely to spar back and forth -- which is okay, by the way, so long as we all know what we are getting into), would help tremendously.
Thanks!
[Edited to add: Jim-Me, I don't think that's actually what FToaS has advocated, but I haven't yet reread to be sure.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Alright, I'll tone it down a bit.
Here are some questions.
1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
Now can I get some answers?
1. The bold part-- that's not toning it down very much
2. all of those questions have been addressed here in the past ad nauseum. The questions are actually very good ones and a worthwhile discussion of them is a good thing. Demanding answers is not.
I know you feel strongly about this, as do I. Please note that it's entirely possible to be forceful without being dismissive and talking down to people.
Edit to add: some might suggest that I'm not very good at that last, myself...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, of course, over half of legally obtained induced abortions in the US occur at >/= 8 weeks, with more than 80% at >/= 13 weeks, per the CDC.*
Something is jarring me about those numbers. Are the >s supposed to be <s?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My feelings and thoughts about abortion aside, the idea of a medical clinic with such appalling attention to medical issues is frightening. Medical procedures taking place without properly trained and licensed personnel, gross misreading of test results, failure to address serious medical issues, not complying with state laws - I would think we can all agree that these problems are serious enough to warrant closure of the facility and possible legal ramifications.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people who didn't want babies managed notto get pregnant in the first place. Here's to hoping *lifts glass of OJ*
I whole-heartedly agree. And maybe if there were more people out there that wouldn't judge when young people try to get contaception and make it hard for them to get it less would get pregnant. Most teenagers are going to have sex. We need to try and help them be safe and hopefully lower the demand for abortion. Can we start in schools teaching girls to be true to themselves, have some self esteem and not necessarily believe the boy when he says he loves you? Get them motivated to take charge of their lives and not risk having sex at a young age? It's a dream I know but I have always thought we could solve a lot af the worlds problems by getting to the next generation of mothers now so they'd raise a new generation of enlightened people. Never happen but I like to picture it anyway. I hope I can get to my little girl at least.
Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
FToaS - are you asking for the current legal answers to your questions, or do you want everyone's personal responses?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote: What about them? You aren't actually concerned for the mother at all, so why pretend you are?
If the mother's life is in danger, you'd still prevent her from having an abortion. You aren't about "pro-life"; you're about anti-abortion.
SL, I've clearly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, it is the mother's right to live. When someone has sex, they take the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant, don't partake in the action that is designed to get you pregnant. In the case of rape, it still doesn't give you the option of killing a baby.
CT, would you kill a brain-dead child if you knew that it would awaken and be healthy in a few months?
Alright, I'll tone it down a bit.
Here are some questions.
1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
Now can I get some answers?
Every single one of those questions could have their own thread, TBH I do not see why its profitable to have everyone in the community broadly argue about all 5. I forsee a complete lack of conclusion to any of them. 4 seems to a great extent to be tied up in many of the answers to the other questions.
Actually now that I think about it, I am just not in an Abortion debating mood right now so it seems silly of me to request that you limit your question to just one point. A point by point discussion MAY prove more profitable then a general discussion of ALL those points. Maybe Ill get bored enough at work to actually contribute to this conversation
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
The answers to #2 and #3 seem to be determined mostly by how you answer #1. And I think the pro-choice arguments follow four general paths: A) A developing fetus is (probably) not yet a person, so we can kill it without killing any person, if they are good reasons to do so that outweigh any chance that it is a person. B) A developing fetus may or may not be a person, and since we can't prove it one way or the other then the government should leave it up to the parents to determine whether it is. C) Regardless of personhood, there may be other more important needs that outweigh any right to life that the fetus has. D) Regardless of personhood, a mother has a right to do what she wants with any part of her body, including a developing fetus.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why I'm taking part in this thread, but I wanted to express my opinion on the subject, so here goes. Again, these are only opinions and they are based on nothing other than my understanding of the situation, as lacking as that may be. I in no way intend to be insulting or offensive, however, some of my opinions may be viewed as crass to some. I am fine with that.
1. Which inalienable rights would be the deciding factor. I believe a baby has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as soon as it can perform the basic functions of being alive (breathing, eating, pumping blood) on it's own. I guess that would be about a month or two within full term. I don't really buy into the whole potential life school of thought as I believe the actual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is far far more important than the potential.
2. Infanticide is killing infants. The consensus I'm getting from dictionary.com is that infants have to be born in order to be... uh... infants. Abortion would be the killing of a fetus.
3. See number 1.
4. See number 1. I believe that the actual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are far far more important than the potential life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (I can't say what "exactly" the pro-choice arguments are for anyone else of course, that is just the best way to sum up my reason.)
5. Because they don't want to give birth. If you need further explanation, you'll have to ask everyone who's ever gotten an abortion, as I'm sure the reasons vary widely.
These answers are necessarily vague. I don't have the time, space or ambition to write out a full essay on the topic, but wanted to give my overall opinions. Also, there are always going to be exceptions to anything, including everything I've said above.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the # of weeks argument is specious. The more important question is where or when in the developmental process is life NOT there? If it is life, it is human life -- the cells are human cells unless some mad scientist type has found a way for human females to foster-bear fetuses from other species.
Ultimately, I think the pro-choice folks would do better to simply acknowledge the fact of the life that's thee and state their belief in the absolute right of the woman to decide what to do with that life based on the mere fact that it is dependent on her for its survival during a special period of time known as "gestation."
If people are more comfortable setting a time period for legal abortion, I suspect the reasons for it are less medical (although, the larger the fetus, surely the more risks are involved in some forms of abortion), than they are asthetic. If you can look at it and tell its human, it's a lot tougher to deal with on an emotional level.
If it looks like a "cluster of cells" then the problem isn't nearly as salient to the imagination.
But, realistically speaking, those maturational distinctions are not very meaningful. The only difference between them is time and nothing BAD happening (naturally or induced).
This realization is, I suspect, where the whole "age of viability" argument comes in. But really, that's a medically moveable and fuzzy boundary. I'm told that any neonatal ICU worth its salt can handle premies beginning at 24 weeks gestation. I don't know if that's true. I just heard it, so if someone has better facts, let me know.
But suffice it to say that the boundary between LIFE and DEATH for premature infants is being pushed further and further back. Perhaps there's an absolute limit to this. Perhaps not. The more that incubators and treatments mimic the womb, the more I suspect that we'll get away from even the concept of "full term" and have to redefine this "boundary" in some other way.
It's considerations like this that make me (a staunch pro-choice person) believe that abortion is a bad solution to a problem that is best avoided, through whatever means work most effectively for the most people, taking their psychology and probability of sexual activity into account.
I'm not big on punishment as a motivator in most situations involving adults. And, at least for the purposes of child-bearing, sexually mature is "adult" in my book.
My preferences are as follows:
1) Abstinence until one is either married or has reached a level of maturity where the decisions about sexual activity are clearly your own business and no-one else's is the prefered option. It obviously avoids pregnancies other than the ones arising from sexual abuse/rape. That's good. But even better, it is a good healthy decision for the "young" person to make to wait until he or she is truly ready for the decisions that must be made regarding sexual behavior in general, and child-rearing in particular. I don't know what the good "cut off" age is, but I could see myself counseling anyone under the age 18 to strongly consider waiting. I can see myself advising a fair number of people in their early 20's to think long and hard before engaging in sexual intercourse.
2) I think there are lots of people who will not abstain until they reach the level of maturity (or are married) that would make ME comfortable that they are "ready" for the decisions that need to be made. For them, and really for EVERYONE, I recommend no-nonsense education about sex and protection. Because even though I think sexual activity at too young an age is potentially damaging, it is not as damaging to the person's mental well-being and future prospects as pregnancy (or fatherhood) at too young an age. ON AVERAGE -- I know several people who did just fine as teen parents and I marvel at them and hold them up as examples of good parents even. That's not the point (see #1 above, there are people younger than MY comfort "age" who could do just great at this parenting stuff). I acknowledge it.
So...anyway, non-nonsense education. What sex is. What committed relationships are. What it takes to raise a kid "well"...parenting classes for the non-parents...all of it. And if there's a message encouraging abstinence in there too, I'm down with that.
3) When people do get pregnant, especially first time pregnancy, I would make parenting classes mandatory. And if a person wants an abortion, as long as it's still legal in this country, then she should get it, and from the best medical providers we have available. Just as I think that if a woman decides to have a child, she should get excellent care. To that end, I think a pooled fund that covers all pregnant women, no matter what they decide (keep the baby, offer the baby for adoption, or abort). No questions asked, just treat them in a top-flight setting at the public expense.
4) Now...the man...I believe that fathers have rights. Their rights are secondary to the woman's in the sense that they do not have a womb to offer during gestation. I recognize that there may be disputes in some cases, but I would not bar a woman from keeping or aborting a baby (or giving it up for adoption even) solely on the basis of the father's rights. I know this sounds like I'm saying fathers have no rights. But really, I think it's more like they don't have the same rights as the woman carrying the fetus does.
I don't have a great answer on this aspect of it.
Anyway, there's my take on the whole issue as much as I feel like getting into now.
AS FOR THE "MURDER" ISSUE:
I solve that by defining the entire gestational period as a special case. I do believe that's how we have been treating it without actually saying so. Just as I would explicitly recognize that human embryos are alive, I would also recognize that during gestation their life isn't the same as the life of someone already born.
I think we'll end up arguing over when (at what point during gestation) a fetus starts to have rights, but I think that at the moment the answer in our laws is that it does not have rights that are severable from its mother's. I would recommend against changing that because I think it opens us up to some very problematic legal issues and some rather ghoulish thoughts about truly severing child from mother before birth.
We aren't ready to take those issues on yet as a society, IMO.
Someday, there will be technology that would make such a thing possible and even preferable in some cases (the drug addicted HIV+ mom versus gestation in an artificial womb, for example).
I'd like to defer those decisions for a few decades if we can.
That's just a preference, though, not a statement of my unwillingness to discuss the ideas.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to have started the thread, made only one post and disappeared. Been busy, and sick from chemo this week.
Wanted to respond to this, though:
quote:Belle, I recall that you mentioned there were things going on that Wes knew through his work but couldn't (and wouldn't) speak about publicly, both for professional and legal reasons.
You won't believe how much I've been biting my tongue and trying very hard not to share knowledge that shouldn't probably be shared. I know much more than I've said, through my husband, and no doubt he may even know more than he's told me. At some point I think he decided to keep some stuff from me to avoid upsetting me. I will say I've spent many a night crying because of what he would call and tell me from the station.
Trust me when I say that everyone, pro-choice, pro-life, whatever - anybody who cares at all about young women should be glad this place is shut down. The atrocities that went on there - I do feel justified calling them atrocities and I'm not referring to the legal abortions that took place there. I'm referring to some unimaginable things.
CT is also right about how it isn't all that easy to find an abortion provider. DeHenre was one of the type she described, a travelling doctor who spent two days a week in a clinic in Jackson MS and two days a week in Birmingham. He was the only physician of record at Summit, and who they replaced him with I have no idea. Probably another traveling, itinerant physician.
Honestly, I don't know what I can tell you. Certainly I would never reveal names or other private information. I don't know what is in the public record and what is not. I do know Wes was never put under any kind of gag order or told by a judge that he couldn't talk about the case, though he did decline interview requests from the media.
But to be safe, I will not go into any more detail than what I've already shared here, just in case it would be improper to do so. I will say that if Summit is a typical abortion clinic, I have a hard time believing the CDC's numbers on complications. I can't imagine why it isn't higher.
One thing I think contributes to it is that there isn't anyplace in the paperwork to indicate "abortion caused injury", it often just goes down as hemorrhage or something. And women may be so ashamed they might not want to admit they had been at an abortion clinic days earlier. Plus, if the clinics are capable of some of the things I've learned about, I don't think for one moment they are not capable of falsifying their records. In fact, my husband can tell you of cases where they have deliberately tried to convince him to change his paperwork such as asking him not to record vital signs, so that it looks on paper as if the patient was in better shape when he picked her up than she really was.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I would not bar a woman from keeping or aborting a baby (or giving it up for adoption even) solely on the basis of the father's rights.
(edit because my surprise looked snarky) Are you saying that the mother of a child should be allowed to put up a baby for adoption even if the father wants to raise the child himself?
posted
Holy mackerel! The people that run this place shouldn't have their licenses suspended, they should be arrested. Is the case you'r husband was testifying in over? If so, what was the outcome? If your able to talk about it, that is. I just can't believe that that kind of thing would go unreported for so long. Or if it was reported, that the authorities took so long to shut it down.
That is such a horrible example of what people will do to make money. I find it hard to believe that people would stoop to such levels, and coming face to screen with the knowledge that it does is staggering.
I don't know what to say, that just makes me so angry. How can a doctor insist that medical records be falsified?! Ugh! Guh! That is just grotesque.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
These arguments over when a fetus is worthy of being considered a human being with a right to life always make me uncomfortable. Like we're standing over a crying baby with a knife, asking, "So when, technically, am I allowed to kill this?"
I know the conversation has to take place, and that it doesn't feel that way to a lot of people, but still. If you start with a viable newborn baby and start working backwards in time, and then you pick a point, and say, "Now! Now is when you can kill it, and it's okay" ... can you then fast-forward again and look that baby in the face and say, "Sorry, but it's my choice, not yours."
Obviously, in the real world, no, you can't do that. The baby that I'm imagining simply never exists at that level of maturity, I get that.
But ... I don't know. We're human beings, and we will always think like human beings. What is or is not "real" to us is a flexible thing. We're capable of having compassion for people and things that we have never seen, and we're capable of ignoring and compartmentalizing things that are going on right in front of us. And both of these traits can potentially be used for good ... though not always.
Is a human being living in sub-saharan Africa any more "real" in the mind of your average American than their own future offspring? I would venture to say NO, they're not. They're characters on TV; not real at all. While future offspring is something that most people think of with fondess or fear ... but REAL emotions, either way, despite the fact that it does not yet exist.
How do genocidal armies stomach the killing of thousands of innocents? By dehumanizing them. Calling them names, stereotyping them, and imagining them as some sort of "other" unworthy of consideration or compassion on any level. And so these human beings are able to do ghastly things to other human beings, and they act as though they are doing little more than slaughtering animals.
And now, in this discussion, we're training ourselves to do that same kind of thing. Whether you think it's right or not, when we insist on using dehumanizing terminology to make it easier to stomach killing our offspring in the womb, that mental process we're putting ourselves through is the same one that death squads go through.
I wonder ... if the word "fetus", or anything like it, did not exist in our language, and the word "baby" applied universally to every stage of human development up to toddlerhood, and we were all FORCED to use it ... would more people have trouble stomaching the pro-choice position?
I wonder, in general, how well the pro-choice argument would fare if people on that side didn't insist on controlling the terminology. And actually ... is eliminating emotion and compassion by exiling the word "baby" from the conversation actually helpful, in the long run?
I mean, as humans, we HAVE to live with our emotions, whatever they are. If we completely eliminate emotion and compassion from our discussion, are we really taking into account all the relevant factors? Could the decisions we make that way end up having negative side-effects we should have anticipated?
For instance, imagine a young woman who got pregnant carelessly, and is terrified of having a baby and messing up all her plans for the future. But she's torn. On the one hand, she doesn't want the life she'll have raising the child, but on the other, she doesn't want to "kill her baby".
She goes to a counsellor, who uses a lot of medical terminology to keep the decision from being an emotional one. By thinking of her offspring as a "fetus" that is just a growth inside her body, and not a person, she is able to put off the feelings that were holding her back, and with her future plans sitting there as the only remaining concern, she decides to have an abortion.
But then every time in the future that she fails to compartmentalize her thoughts that way, and (for instance) imagines herself with a baby, or sees a single friend give birth to a beautiful child despite hardship, or postulates what might ahve happened if she hadn't had the abortion, or whatever ... those feelings come rushing back. She feels horrible, and feels like she killed her baby, even though at the time, she had managed to put those feelings off long enough to make the decision.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone, or even to most people. My point isn't to paint all abortion patients with this brush, by any means. The purpose of this hypothetical is thus: If having an abortion is ever a good decision, then I think that decision should be made with ALL the relevant factors in place, INCLUDING emotion. If a person can't stomach the idea of killing their unborn offspring, then whatever decision they make needs to take that into account. If our society needs to decide whether we can stomach (or continue to stomach) allowing some of our members to choose to kill their unborn offspring, then we, too, need to take emotion and compassion into account. If compassion prevents us from making the decision that seems reasonable in a dispassionate argument ... maybe that's okay. Us being human, after all.
But that's just my opinion For the record, I'm not on the extreme end of the pro-life position. I don't think that abortion is as terrible a wrong as murder, and I think there are many cases where it is the lesser of two evils. I also think that our society has become so dependent on abortion-on-demand that were we to remove it all at once, it would be very much like taking away someone's heroin. The withdrawal could be as bad as or worse than the addiction.
However, after becoming a parent, I am suddenly able to conceive of the enormity of what we're talking about here. It's not a distant thing to me anymore. That six-pound stillborn child wasn't one of those "characters on TV" to me ... when I read that, I was forced to imagine my early fears about my own daughter before she was born, and ... well, it hurt. And I think it should hurt. When it stops hurting because we have succeeded in quashing all our feelings of compassion or emotional concern for our unborn offspring, that is when I think that humanity will have lost its humanity.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a person can't stomach the idea of killing their unborn offspring, then whatever decision they make needs to take that into account.
It's worth noting -- and I speak here as someone who's anti-abortion -- that using the word "baby" strongly encourages the minimization of the word "unborn." And I think the relative importance of those words is VERY crucial to both sides.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone, or even to most people. My point isn't to paint all abortion patients with this brush, by any means. The purpose of this hypothetical is thus: If having an abortion is ever a good decision, then I think that decision should be made with ALL the relevant factors in place, INCLUDING emotion. If a person can't stomach the idea of killing their unborn offspring, then whatever decision they make needs to take that into account. If our society needs to decide whether we can stomach (or continue to stomach) allowing some of our members to choose to kill their unborn offspring, then we, too, need to take emotion and compassion into account. If compassion prevents us from making the decision that seems reasonable in a dispassionate argument ... maybe that's okay. Us being human, after all.
I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning behind the anecdote, Puppy. Attempting to reach a dispassionate decision is not a good idea when the subject matter is something that deserves passion.
With that in mind, though, I feel like the purpose behind differentiating between baby and fetus isn't just a matter of seperating the emotion from the decision; it's an important distinction that, ultimately, every person has to (and does) make for themselves.
After all, most of the reasonable pro-life people I know can use the term fetus in an abortion discussion and never once surrender their belief that a fetus is indeed a baby.
The question of when life begins originating is important in other context as well, given the number of contraceptives that allow fertilization but prevent implantation. It's an issue as old and weary as the line between fetus and baby, but still an important one.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very well stated Geoff, and with much more discipline and tonal control than I can muster when I talk about abortion. I agree with you 100%.
I'm doing a research paper on the Armenian genocide of 1915. I'm seeing a lot of the terminology they used to dehumanize the Armenians, and I keep thinking to myself:Those were people, my people, and they were butchered for pride: the numbers range from 800000 to 1.5 million dead, depending on the source. That's for another thread, though.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only one problem....you may consider a fetus a human, but legally it isn't. . . and a lot of people disagree about it's level of humanity.
So it isn't, by definition, a baby, nor can it be dehuminized.
I am not trying to discuss just the semantics of the issue, but rather to point out some very real differences in views about them. I personally would never, barring no other real choices (death of mother, ect.), consider abortion as a viable choice for my wofe and I. I just don't think I have the right to choose for another person.
It isn't a matter of dehuimanizing a baby from this side of the fence; rather it is about someone trying to personify and humanize a fetus, which is not a human being. Trying to relate it to a baby in order to decrease the chances of it being aborted.
It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
quote:(edit because my surprise looked snarky) Are you saying that the mother of a child should be allowed to put up a baby for adoption even if the father wants to raise the child himself?
Actually, the least considered part of my opinion is the man's rights. I just haven't spent a lot of time considering them. I can imagine some situations, certainly, in which the man's desire to raise the child should not supercede the woman's desire to put it up for adoption. Rape, incest, and child abuse, for example, could be perfectly valid reasons for the woman to not want the biological father to end up with custody of the child.
Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
I can also see that there'd be situations where the woman should not have automatic custody of the child even if she wants to keep it.
But, yeah, I haven't done a lot of thinking about father's rights.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
Wow. I'm fairly stunned by this.
quote:So it isn't, by definition, a baby, nor can it be dehuminized.
Kwea, once again, you are attempting to assert that the particular state of our laws are somehow definitive in a discussion which is about whether those laws are just.
It's kind of like someone quoting the Bible to prove to an atheist that God exists - you're using the conclusion of one of the sides as a starting premise, and it's just not sound to do so in this circumstance.
Whether or not the law should recognize an unborn fetus as a human being is the issue being debated. Stating the law's lack of recognition as a proof that one isn't a human being is begging the question.
quote:It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
If you want to use the law as the baseline, then the moment a person becomes worthy of protection by the state is dependent on technology - because, under Casey, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of a viable fetus.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
Color me equally stunned. I've always thought there would be, in a hypothetical perfect world, a way to identify paternity before birth and that both parents would have to agree to an abortion. Of course, if it were a perfect world, then we wouldn't have unplanned pregnancies at all.
I know a man who was informed by his girlfriend that she was pregnant and then went and got an abortion against his express wishes. To this day he mourns his child. He would have happily raised the child, with or without her help.
If the situation were reversed, and a woman gives birth to a child that a man doesn't want we still make him pay child support. And we should, because we recognize it takes two people to make a baby and a man should be as responsible as a woman. But we don't grant him the right to have a say in whether or not his child is even born, and I think that's tragic. I think it's even more tragic that some people don't see a problem with that.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think the # of weeks argument is specious. The more important question is where or when in the developmental process is life NOT there? If it is life, it is human life -- the cells are human cells unless some mad scientist type has found a way for human females to foster-bear fetuses from other species.
Here is where the teratoma comes in for me. Not as an abstraction, but as a real issue. Functional organization does seem key.
As far as the sustainability being an arbitrary cutoff, I agree -- but it also arbitrary at the end of life, as well. We could keep people "alive" artificially for a long, long time, and we have. It doesn't seem, though, that this is a reasonable or desirable, not when you are faced with what actually happens in certain individual cases.
Again, functional organization seems key to me -- but this is, admittedly, only after having been exposed to a great many individual (very difficult, very much unanticipated back in my "lay" years) situations up close. I don't mean this to be dismissive or pull rank. Really, I'm not. I'm just trying to explain that my gut reactions changed over the years, and I don't think it was merely because I became inured to things (although surely that must influence things as well). It's just that I had to deal with things which my worldview wasn't prepared to answer, not without some deep thought and reconsideration.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: These arguments over when a fetus is worthy of being considered a human being with a right to life always make me uncomfortable. Like we're standing over a crying baby with a knife, asking, "So when, technically, am I allowed to kill this?"
I know the conversation has to take place, and that it doesn't feel that way to a lot of people, but still. If you start with a viable newborn baby and start working backwards in time, and then you pick a point, and say, "Now! Now is when you can kill it, and it's okay" ... can you then fast-forward again and look that baby in the face and say, "Sorry, but it's my choice, not yours."
And here is where the issue of infertility and frozen embryos comes up for me. Again, not as an abstraction, but as a real and substantive issue that pulls out conflicting heart-tugging emotions.
In both of these cases, the other issues I mention give me pause because they conflict with my [prior] gut response. I think there is a role for both gut and intellect in this, in large part because neither is sufficient to answer all of the questions that arise.
I'd submit that it is easier to see this as a simple issue the less you know about it. I think we do ourselves and one another a disservice by not trying to tackle it in its complexity, if we are going to address it at all. And obviously, we have to.
posted
An example for illustration: one's gut may tell one that sickle cell anemia is a disease. When you first find out about it, especially if you know someone who is going through a sickle cell crisis (excruciating pain, self-destruction of the spleen, and in some cases death), you would -- and rightly so, based on the evidence you have -- be gut-certain that SCA is a bad thing. And it is.
But then if you learn about malaria, and you come to see what malaria is like (and what devastation it can wreck in a population), you will know at a gut level that malaria is a bad thing. And it is. However, the connection between malaria and SCA is an unexpected thing that pops up, too.
Suddenly, there is a level of incongruity here (or, at least, unexpected complexity). It's not that SCA becomes a good thing, and it's not that your former reaction to SCA was unwarranted. It's just that you now look at SCA somewhat differently, and it would be -- I think -- inappropriate and unjust not to look at it at least a little differently. And, too, that wouldn't make you less of a good person for now feeling somewhat differently about this disease. That is, I wouldn't necessary embrace SCA, but I would have to consider that getting rid of the SCA gene may not be a good decision in all circumstances.
This is a terrible analogy, by the way. I'm not trying to say it is a great one for modelling what I'm trying to say. Rather, I'm just trying to give a flavor of why I have an appreciation for the complexity as well as the initial gut reaction. (And granted, I do not have my own children, so my "initial gut reaction" may well have been more informed and changed if I had, as Puppy states his was. I would not deny that; rather, I'm pretty sure of it.)
I used to be very much a proponent of the general idea that "if it is alive and it has human DNA, then it is human life, and human life should be honored and preserved." I then started to run into situations (like the teratoma, like people after severe head injury) where my gut had a conflicting reaction that didn't seem to make sense with what I thought I believed.
On the one hand, I could have tossed out these other situations as anomalies or exceptions to the rule. But a) they were less anomalous than I'd realized, the fact of which was a real problem, and b) a good, strong, robust moral theory should be able to explain the exceptions to the rule as well as the rule itself. Otherwise, it seems to me, we are just cherry-picking out rules (or, at least, it is a strong risk that we are doing so). I certainly wouldn't claim that anyone here is cherry-picking rules for convenience, by the way. I do think it's a risk we take if we take in a much broader picture, but then decide not to address the sticky points because they are either uncomfortable issues or just don't fit in with the theory.
I'm at the point where if I were to go back to the stripped-down version (more elegant, more "pure," more convincing, less wishy-washy-looking ) of morality in this area that I held before, I would be cherry-picking. Even if it might be easier, I can't do that. Not in an authentic way, even if it would be appealling to do so.
--------------
Edited to add: Of course, Theca has been exposed to many (if not all) of the situations I was in, and quite possibly more besides, but she has come to a different conclusion about abortion. That is, I think it's also important to note that not everyone who has seen some of these things will have the same reactions or draw the same conclusions.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not trying to say "I'm right because I know more than you," but rather "I might believe differently because I was challenged in unexpected ways, not because I am a cold, heartless, unfeeling person who wants babies to die." There's a big difference.
posted
I would weigh a lot of things before giving a child to one or the other parent in a disputed case. That's all I'm saying.
I think being stunned or pointing to "tragedy" is putting far too much spin on what, to me, is really just not a clear issue.
I agree that there are single men out there who would make wonderful parents. And I would hope that if the state is involved in the decision at all, that their desire and ability to raise a child would be recognized and given weight.
But wishing for it and actually doing it are two different things and I would not give them automatic custody.
But then, I wouldn't give automatic unsupervised custody of a child to anyone. I think there are far too many screw ups out there having kids and while I respect the rights of the individual, I do think that we put far too little emphasis on parenting skills as a pre-requisite for actually being a parent.
I have a strongly ingrained antipathy against big-brother solutions, but while we're wrangling over the rights of the unborn, how about the rights of and responsibilities toward the just born? And the maturing.
Do you know the average age of a homeless person in the USA? It's 9 according data presented by "Sheltered Reality" (and no, I haven't looked up the US Gov't figures on that).
But really, I'm not trying to reframe the debate here. I would like every pregnancy to occur out of love and desire, and every child to be born into a stable loving family in which resources and knowledge for raising the child are present. I'm not saying every kid has to have a Nintendo or we're failing...
What I am saying is that the real tragedies are when people have children and neglect them, abuse them, or even simply just fail to raise them to be happy, healthy, and confident individuals.
Mere "desire" to be parent is not enough, IMO. It's a good part of the equation, but it's not everything. And I want EVERYTHING to be considered.
(and before you ask, when I say "resources," I'm not saying "give the kid to the wealthiest person who is interested." I grew up around the children of the wealthy in one of the richest communities on the planet. Some of them had great parents. Some of them may as well have been raised by wolves. That is most emphatically NOT where I was going with this)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While we're at it...when, during maturation, do the problems of child stop being the parent's responsibility and become the responsibility of that person themselves?
I'm sure you've all known low-self-esteem kids and been around them as adults. In our society, we wring our hands over them as little ones -- they get picked on and never get a break. But as adults, our society still looks at their depression and bad decision-making (especially in their personal lives) as their own problem and they should "fix" themselves.
We look at homeless people and see losers.
(yeah, yeah, I know, not all of us do that...)
We look at the addicted and tsk tsk about how they are wasting their lives and it's their problem.
The cult of personal responsibility that permeates our thinking on "justice" in this country is appalling.
If it's possible to care so much for the unborn, I think we should carry that forward. I'm not saying that nobody does, but innocence and guilt are concepts that we layer onto our perceptions of other's lives and the mess that those lives are.
Fact is, if we allow the decks to be stacked against a kid, it doesn't mean there's a zero probability that the kid will turn out okay, but pointing to the few successes and saying "hey, he made it" or "she didn't end up bad" is missing the point.
The point is that we have some structural problems in our society, they relate very closely to poor child rearing, and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of how to fix it.
Parent's rights, once the child is born, are practically inviolate with respect to the effects parents have on the MENTAL well being of a child (and the future adult).
The discussions about abortion are things we need to go through in this society.
But the 800 lb gorilla in the room is still waiting for us to deal with, IMO.
And I don't think it's just a "we'll get to it next" kind of thing. I think it's more of a social gear shift than the abortion debate has ever been for us.
I mean basically, the reason the "pro-life" moniker is so powerful is because EVERYONE wants to be considered in favor of life. It's a given.
If we start having the larger debate about how children are raised, the firestorm over personal rights is going to be HUGE. It strikes at the very core of the principles this country was founded on, and our guarantees of rights and freedoms.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I am saying is that the real tragedies are when people have children and neglect them, abuse them, or even simply just fail to raise them to be happy, healthy, and confident individuals.
Kill your children before they become teenagers, or you will fail as a parent.
quote:Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
Color me equally stunned. I've always thought there would be, in a hypothetical perfect world, a way to identify paternity before birth and that both parents would have to agree to an abortion. Of course, if it were a perfect world, then we wouldn't have unplanned pregnancies at all.
I know a man who was informed by his girlfriend that she was pregnant and then went and got an abortion against his express wishes. To this day he mourns his child. He would have happily raised the child, with or without her help.
If the situation were reversed, and a woman gives birth to a child that a man doesn't want we still make him pay child support. And we should, because we recognize it takes two people to make a baby and a man should be as responsible as a woman. But we don't grant him the right to have a say in whether or not his child is even born, and I think that's tragic. I think it's even more tragic that some people don't see a problem with that.
I see a major problem with it. I totally agree with you, Belle.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately, I think the pro-choice folks would do better to simply acknowledge the fact of the life that's thee and state their belief in the absolute right of the woman to decide what to do with that life based on the mere fact that it is dependent on her for its survival during a special period of time known as "gestation."
The trouble with this is that I think it's pretty clear that no such right exists. Nobody has a blank check to do freely whatever they want with their own body IF those actions are going to directly lead to the deaths of other people. If I were to catch the Bird Flu, for instance, the government would have every right to quarantine me - I wouldn't be entitled to claim "It's my body and I can do what I want with it, so I can bring it on a plane with this infectious flu if I want to." The implications of your decisions on other people, including on unborn people, do need to be considered to some degree or another.
In addition to this, any special right a woman did have in such a situation would be negated by her choice to have sex and risk pregnancy. You can't buy a stock and then assert you have a right to get all your original money back if the stock crashes unexpectedly the next day. Similarly, no person can choose to have sex but then assert a "right" to undo a pregnancy that results from their choice. Making a voluntary choice limits your rights insofar as you must now take responsibility for that choice. In making that choice to have sex, there is an inherent sacrifice of the parent's right to do whatever she wants with her own body in the event that her choice results in pregnancy - which is one big reason why sex should not be treated as just another enjoyable activity.
So, if pro-choicers are going to make an argument for abortion, I don't think they can assert that no matter what a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Instead, I think they have to make the more difficult argument that the moral benefits of having abortion outweigh whatever the costs are. And I don't see that as possible if the fetus is an actual person - because killing a person is such a massive "cost" that I see few (if any) benefits that could ever morally justify it. On the other hand, if a fetus is just a collection of cells and not a person, then the costs would be far far less, because presumably no person would be getting killed.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I am strongly pro-choice, but I think I would consider a compromise where abortion was made unavailable except for in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life on the condition that we had nation-wide informative sexual education (not abstiance-only) and access to free birth control without parental permission. So if we could say that every woman and man in the country is well informed of the facts of how sex and contraception work, why it's important to use birth control and what kinds also protect from STDs, what the failure rates of each kind are, etc. And the person could walk into a clinic and get examined and a prescription for the pill, or a shot, and a supply of condoms, no questions asked, no worrying about if your insurance covers it or having to tell your parents. There would still be unplanned pregnancies, sure, but I'd be a lot more comfortable telling those women they made the choice and have to deal with the consequences in that situation. There would also have to be a discussion about if the morning after pill counted as contraceptive or abortion, I suppose, but I don't think we'd ever (as a country) get to the point of having to make that decision anyway. No opting out of the sex ed for religious reasons, either. Sure, the parents can say they wouldn't let their kid have an abortion anyway, but then it's not the teenager making the informed decision to or not to have sex knowing they won't be able to get an abortion.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would weigh a lot of things before giving a child to one or the other parent in a disputed case. That's all I'm saying.
I think being stunned or pointing to "tragedy" is putting far too much spin on what, to me, is really just not a clear issue.
But you're not talking about giving the child to one or the other parent. You're talking about allowing the mother to give the child to an anonymous stranger.
If all you're saying is that there are situations where children should be removed from the custody of their natural parents, of course I'd agree. But it seems to me that you're assigning more weight to the mother's opinion on whether a stranger should raise their child. And that strikes me as not just wrong, but very, very wrong.
If the mother wishes to put the baby up for adoption and the father objects, then the issue will come before the courts. But, once done, the decision should be made on the presumption that the biological parents are both fit, just as it is whenever the issue of a child's custody comes before the court.
In other words, the mother's opinion should mean absolutely nothing. Her testimony about specific facts related to the father's fitness as a parent should be weighed, along with every other available piece of evidence. Having already excluded the fairly obvious disqualifiers (rape, incest) and couched it in terms of not seeing eye-to-eye about anonymous adoption, I do find the attitude stunning.
It is a very clear issue: barring evidence of being an unfit parent, a biological parent should be allowed to raise their child. More importantly, I think there's a right of the child to be raised by a biological parent, again barring evidence of unfitness.
Obviously, when there's a dispute, someone must be selected. Between two biological parents, the biology cancels out. Between a biological parent and an anonymous stranger, a fit (and a rapist or incest-commiter is not fit) biological parent should obtain custody. Always.
quote:What I am saying is that the real tragedies are when people have children and neglect them, abuse them, or even simply just fail to raise them to be happy, healthy, and confident individuals.
Mere "desire" to be parent is not enough, IMO. It's a good part of the equation, but it's not everything. And I want EVERYTHING to be considered.
I want everything to be considered, too. However, most of what your talking about, especially the well-adjustedness and mental health, is something the government is flat-out not qualified to do in general.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am again reminded why I am so much in awe of CT. Thank you, dear, for being so gracious and wise. You're someone I very much admire.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
Let's suppose it's granted that a fetus is at no point prior to birth a human being-since you're going from the purely legal standpoint, in one way...
You're speaking as though one right is equal to a completely different right, and violating one in favor of the other is a gross inequity. But there are rights and there are really big rights. For instance...
By the reasoning you're using here-one party's rights (or, I suppose since many pro-choicers would hesitate at even that distinction) thing's rights are completely subordinate, even its most important rights, to much less vital rights of the other party.
So, if someone robs me, I get to apprehend, imprison, and interrogate them myself, right? After all, their rights certainly don't outweigh mine. If someone harms a loved one of mine, then I get to do equal harm to that perpetrator because their rights did not supersede my loved one's rights, did they?
I have never heard it explained very well why a woman's right to terminate a voluntary pregnancy-as it almost always is, so long as you define 'voluntary' to mean 'outcome that could have been cheaply and painlessly avoided'-is somehow more worthy of protection under the law than the right of the fetus to have a life.
We protect animals from harm and death and maltreatment, even from their owners if society becomes aware of mistreatment. I fail to see why an animal has a greater right to protection than a fetus which could have been avoided entirely.
It's like saying, "Yeah, I ran that red light but whoever's in that intersection better get the hell outta my way! I got a right to go where I wanna go!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: If I recall correctly, the fetal brainstem develops in the 7th to 9th week of gestation, and although the RAS development would take longer, I think that would make a viable demarcation point. I'd look at the functioning RAS as a necessary but not sufficient condition for personhood
How do you measure 'personhood'? Does that show up on an ultrasound? "Ahh, looks like she's at 43.8% personhood and coming along nicely. A few more weeks and she'll be a full person."
Of course, 'personhood' is a conveniently nebulous term that really doesn't mean anything at all. Saying that a fetus hasn't achieved 'personhood' due to brain development is no different from taking a religious position that the 'soul' is acquired at conception. Neither argument has any place in setting public policy.
[edited to correct accidental omission]
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: You know, I am strongly pro-choice, but I think I would consider a compromise where abortion was made unavailable except for in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life on the condition that we had nation-wide informative sexual education (not abstiance-only) and access to free birth control without parental permission...
As a strongly pro-life person, I would accept the terms you describe in a New York minute.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
