quote:One way or another I have decided. even though the thought of abortion disturbs me, I will always defend the rights of the individual in this case. I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
You seem to be suggesting that because people disagree about whether a fetus is human, therefore the law has no place providing protection to the fetus.
I'm sure a moment's thought will allow you to come up with the obvious counterexample to why this isn't sufficient to deny a fetus protection. (Think slavery, for example.)
Now, what is it that distinguishes this situation where people disagree about what the law should be from every other situation where people disagree what the law should be (i.e., every single other law on the books).
I, too will always defend the rights of the individual in this case - specifically, the individual that is being killed.
quote:Nothing has a RIGHT to be born, although once they are they gain rights accordingly....just like any other human being. You may wish they do, and even try to make it so, but you won't convince me you "know" anything of the sort. You believe it, strongly, but I don't acknowledge it...and I am hardly a staunch pro-choice person.
No one has ANY rights by the standard you are putting forth here. Why do you have the right not to be blown away by a total stranger? Why did that right attach at birth, and not two minutes prior?
As a means of distinguishing between when rights should be legally enforced, there's no "there" there. All first moral principles stand on the same ground. Your moral principle that individuals should decide whether a being is human is exactly as unfounded as mine.
Morally, a fetus has the right to not be killed. Your lack of recognition of that doesn't change that, nor is your lack of recognition of that somehow supported by a more provable first principle than my recognition of that right it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got a lot out of this thread. I'm actually fairly impressed with Hatrack for being able to sustain a reasoned discussion on this topic for several pages.
I also got to see where I need to do some more thinking, and that's always a good thing.
And I got mentioned in the same compliment as CT and president ElJay!!! Thanks kmboots!
At the risk of reopening a topic from too many pages ago, I would like to comment on the rape/incest situation.
I suspect that if the true incidence of rape was reliably measurable in this country it would shock a lot of people.
There comes a point where I just have to walk away when people casually toss out terms like "frivolous rape accusation" in conversation because, unless we really have good measures of it, I'm inclined to consider the charges real and serious.
In the case of a reason for an abortion, I suspect we're not going to ever have full agreement on this.
I await the day when artificial wombs and embryo transplants make it possible for a pregnant rape victim to have a choice other than abortion or carrying their rapists' child.
Until then, I have to lean toward the position that even if abortion is declared illegal, an exception should be made for a woman who was raped. And I wouldn't put her through having to prove it either. I would prefer that she have it on record already, but I wouldn't make that a requirement. If the rape wasn't previously reported, I would prefer that she file a police report as part of the process of obtaining an abortion (should she so choose), but I wouldn't require that either.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
I would argue that the question of whether someone has the right to kill someone else in this situation is at the heart of the matter, and pro-choicers do themselves a disservice by taking that for granted.
What most pro-choice advocates assume is that the fetus is not a human being deserving of life; it's an implicit assumption on which the whole discussion of any "rights of the individual is predicated (because, after all, if the fetus is ALSO an individual, then we've got some other rights to worry about).
So by bringing up the issue of personal rights, pro-choicers are also dismissing the entire pro-life argument without discussion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: and I was trying to make the point that it ISN'T a baby, by legal definition
Please provide a sourced 'legal definition' of the word "baby."
It's two steps away...here they are, for your semantic pleasure....
Fetuses are not human, as they have not been born yet. Birth is the defining state of personhood as we know it now. No person NOT BORN has rights under ANY legal document in the USA, Lacy's Law notwithstanding (that provides punishment for a crime based on the possibility of life, one of the things I disagree with).
I agree with this, as giving a fetus rights would limit the freedom of the mother to an unacceptable degree, and involve the government in reproductive rights to an absurd degree.
You can't document a negative. As you well know. Pro-life people are the ones attempting to stretch the definition to include unborn children, so that the laws that govern human behavior will apply to them as well. Until that happens, fetuses have no rights.
I am not trying to use the laws to defend my beliefs, but a specific question was asked about legal definitions. The fact is, there are no legal definitions because under the law they aren't human yet, and won't be until birth. If they were, they would have rights....which doesn't automatically mean their rights would outweigh the mothers, BTW.
I believe a woman should have the right to determine what happens to her body, plain and simple. I don't have to agree with her decision to defend her right to choose.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, it is more that that area has been discussed to futility, and neither side is willing to give on the matter.
Even if I did consider it was human at that point....which I am not willing to concede)....it still wouldn't change the fact that I feel a woman has the right to decide for herself where her life is going to go.
I don't even trust the government to deal with the US people in a fair and impartial manner in subject much, much less important than reproductive rights. I can't think of a place where the government belongs less than this, actually.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The fact is, there are no legal definitions because under the law they aren't human yet, and won't be until birth. If they were, they would have rights...
Were African slaves human -- and did they have rights -- prior to recognition of such status by law?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep reading your last two posts, Kwea, and I just don't understand how you can care about the legal definition so much.
This part:
quote:You can't document a negative. As you well know. Pro-life people are the ones attempting to stretch the definition to include unborn children, so that the laws that govern human behavior will apply to them as well. Until that happens, fetuses have no rights.
Ugh. I think injuring a nine months pregnant woman to the point that the baby dies, SHOULD be considered illegal. Surely not just us pro-lifers are the only ones that believe this. Surely there must be many other groups of people that see this as a montrous act. And if they see this as an illegal act there are probably many who would see this as monstrous at eight months. Many who would see it as monstrous in the third trimester. Or the second. The law and the definition of personhood are not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Nor is being pro-life that simple.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think injuring a nine months pregnant woman to the point that the baby dies, SHOULD be considered illegal.
It is illegal. Are you meaning to say that assaulting a pregnant woman should be considered a greater crime than a woman who is, as some wish to put it, only "pre-pregnant"? Or that it should become a murder+assault?
quote:The law and the definition of personhood are not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Nor is being pro-life that simple.
I agree. Being pro-choice, for me, is similarly much more complicated than simply deciding whether or not a fetus is human or whatnot at any given point.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant to say that the death of the baby should be illegal, even without Laci's Law. Of course harming the woman would be illegal.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Hmm. That's a tough question. I'm not sure I would count the two differently. Intention counts, obviously on the part of the offender...I think probably not on the part of the pregnant woman, because up to the very moment, there is the possibility of changing her mind about aborting.
Morally, my gut feeling is that it is a worse crime to hurt a pregnant woman, but I'm not sure if that can viably carry over to a legal point of view, or that it should be.
And after mulling it over for a few minutes, I conclude that I can conclude nothing, and most likely will not at this hour of the morning. But I will continue to think about this. Good questions, Theca.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And there is another of the many contradictions inherent in abortion which in my opinion illustrates just how much convincing pro-choicers must do for themselves to continue to be staunchly pro-choice...some, anyway, of some degrees of intensity.
I think you would have to look very, very, very hard and long to find someone who didn't think knowingly harming a pregnant woman was worse than knowingly harming a woman who wasn't pregnant. Similarly that it's worse for a pregnant woman to drink to excess, use narcotics, etc. than it is for a non-pregnant woman to do so.
I still have not heard a reason why any single one of a woman's rights trumps in and of itselfall potential rights of the unborn. It's not just a question of whether or not the fully-grown adult human being should have more rights (and responsibilities, although that word rarely gets mated to 'rights' in this discussion) than the unborn. Obviously, she should.
But that is not the argument that pro-choice makes. The argument made is that a woman's 'right' to lack of financial hardship, for instance, trumps any potential right of the unborn to be alive for example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you would have to look very, very, very hard and long to find someone who didn't think knowingly harming a pregnant woman was worse than knowingly harming a woman who wasn't pregnant.
Or maybe not so hard. I don't think it would be any worse for you to knowingly harm me now than it would have been for you to knowingly harm me five months ago.
Or, to put it the other direction, if you were to punch me in the stomach five months from now, I'd think you were just as much a jerk as if you did it now.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I think your summation of "the argument made" is more of a summation of your take on the effects of the arugment, rather than the argument itself.
For example, I'm presently slightly pro-choice precisely because I'm unwilling to make the very determination that you attribute to me. From my perspective, CT's posts earlier in this thread are very, very apt.
I also think that you may be overlooking the implications of your own view. Dagonee is the only person on this board who I have seen outline a cohesive, workable legal framework to handle illegalized abortion. I think that this side of the issue is much more complex than you are making it out to be.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Dagonee is the only person on this board who I have seen outline a cohesive, workable legal framework to handle illegalized abortion. I think that this side of the issue is much more complex than you are making it out to be.
I think that's because he's a lawyer.
For my part, I don't think it should have been made legal to begin with, but now that the genie's out of the bottle, I would be very happy to get some restrictions in place. I have long maintained that Pro-Life organizations could make a lot of progress by saying "our opponents want to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. Thus far they've made it legal. We need to make it safer and rarer." I think conceding the legality of it and working on closer regulation (is anyone else a little dissatisfied with the official response to the incident that started this thread? I know there is the hope that they will eventually close the place down permanently but...) and preventative education ( not just sex education but, as pH so correctly points out, abortion is no Sunday picnic and a lot of people need to be made aware of that).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Dagonee is the only person on this board who I have seen outline a cohesive, workable legal framework to handle illegalized abortion. I think that this side of the issue is much more complex than you are making it out to be.
I think that's because he's a lawyer.
Good point.
I agree with the rest of your post in that I think whichever "side" moves toward a compromise position (e.g. restrictions) in the U.S. first will gain a lot of good will from the great big middle, and will ultimately be perceived as the "winner" insofar as this debate can have one.
Here in Canada the issue seems unlikely to be revisited, but I don't know much about the debate because it happened well before I was paying any significant attention to politics.
Added: Also, one of the main reasons that my opinion on this issue is so fuzzy is that if I ever had to deal with it on a personal level I would be inclined to put more weight on my partner's opinion than on my own. She would be the one who had to deal with the lion's share of the immediate consequences of either choice -- that is, the lion's share by far of the physiological and psychological consequences of either decision. We would share the responsibility-type consequences, and of course I would want input into the decision, but if she felt strongly one way or the other I think I would do my best to support her.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if I did consider it was human at that point....which I am not willing to concede)....it still wouldn't change the fact that I feel a woman has the right to decide for herself where her life is going to go.
I'm going to call your bluff on this one. If a woman decides that she's better off without her fourteen-year-old son, of course you don't think she has the right to kill her son to get her life back on track. The rights (or lack thereof) of the fetus are crucial to any argument that asserts the right of the mother.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people don't have complete control over where their lives are going to go. The needs of other people always affect your options in life.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion except to say great posts, Dagonee, and keep up the excellent work.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure which determination you mean, nor what exactly you mean by effects of the argument rather than the argument itself. I don't know if I'm having a brain fart, or what?
As for implications of my own view, I am aware of them. In the past on Hatrack and elsewhere, I have gone into some detail about what I would do if I had it my way and had to deal with the ramifications. Nowhere nearly as detailed as Dagonee of course, but that applies pretty much across the board, heh. Suffice it to say I think Puppy's analogy to heroin addiction was quite apt in that you can't just stop doing heroin once you're addicted.
------
kmbboots,
If as is the case with a vast majority of 'unwanted' pregancies the fourteen year old wasn't given a choice in the matter of whose body he would be living in, and she did bring him in on her own...then I'm afraid not, she wouldn't have much of an argument. At least not to me anyway, obviously. Once the woman starts saying, "It's my body," that begs the question, "So this just happened to you then, but it's your body now and you are in complete control?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure which determination you mean, nor what exactly you mean by effects of the argument rather than the argument itself. I don't know if I'm having a brain fart, or what?
As for implications of my own view, I am aware of them. In the past on Hatrack and elsewhere, I have gone into some detail about what I would do if I had it my way and had to deal with the ramifications. Nowhere nearly as detailed as Dagonee of course, but that applies pretty much across the board, heh. Suffice it to say I think Puppy's analogy to heroin addiction was quite apt in that you can't just stop doing heroin once you're addicted.
------
kmbboots,
If as is the case with a vast majority of 'unwanted' pregancies the fourteen year old wasn't given a choice in the matter of whose body he would be living in, and she did bring him in on her own...then I'm afraid not, she wouldn't have much of an argument. At least not to me anyway, obviously. Once the woman starts saying, "It's my body," that begs the question, "So this just happened to you then, but it's your body now and you are in complete control?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as whether or not an assault on a pregnant woman should be punished more harshly than an assualt on a non-pregnant woman- I vote yes. If you cause a woman to miscarry, and I would be so extreme as to argue from conception, that is far more of a loss than just an assault. Also, if you consider all the sacrifices involved in getting pregnant for some woman (thinking of the cost of in vitro fertilization and such), there is a huge financial investment in that baby already, as well as an emotional investment.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If as is the case with a vast majority of 'unwanted' pregancies the fourteen year old wasn't given a choice in the matter of whose body he would be living in, and she did bring him in on her own...then I'm afraid not, she wouldn't have much of an argument. At least not to me anyway, obviously. Once the woman starts saying, "It's my body," that begs the question, "So this just happened to you then, but it's your body now and you are in complete control?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure which determination you mean, nor what exactly you mean by effects of the argument rather than the argument itself. I don't know if I'm having a brain fart, or what?
No problem. I'll try to explain it better. You wrote:
quote:But that is not the argument that pro-choice makes. The argument made is that a woman's 'right' to lack of financial hardship, for instance, trumps any potential right of the unborn to be alive for example.
Maybe we're listening to different pro-choicers, but I don't think I've ever heard this argument the way your express it. I think you're collapsing the spectrum of loosely pro-choice views into a single proposition and then scrutinizing it through the lens of your own position. Let's say I accept that some variant of this is "the argument made by pro-choicers" (I don't, but you know, sake of argument and all that ). My rephrase would be that "a woman has the right to decide what happens in her life (e.g. avoid financial hardship) with respect to pregnancy." The obvious distinction is the complete absence of even hypothetical rights for the fetus, because I don't think "the pro-choice argument," insofar as there is one, inherently recognizes any right of the unborn to be alive -- in particular, at or near conception. If there is no such right, it can't be trumped. In other words, while you feel that the result of the argument is that the rights of the fetus are trumped, that isn't the content of argument. It's the outcome or effect.
The determination that I'm unwilling to make is that same one -- that the mother's rights trump the fetus' rights (or, conversely, that the fetus' rights trump the mother's). I'm not sure that they do; I'm not sure that the fetus has rights at all, or if so at what point they kick in, and finally I also don't think it should be up to me. That's why my position is fuzzy but overall slightly on the pro-choice "side," without making what you characterized as "the argument pro-choice makes."
Did that help?
quote:As for implications of my own view, I am aware of them. In the past on Hatrack and elsewhere, I have gone into some detail about what I would do if I had it my way and had to deal with the ramifications. Nowhere nearly as detailed as Dagonee of course, but that applies pretty much across the board, heh. Suffice it to say I think Puppy's analogy to heroin addiction was quite apt in that you can't just stop doing heroin once you're addicted.
That's one important aspect, and definitely well worth considering. I'm also thinking of the implications of the moral statement you're trying to make: that an embryo, fetus, or unborn baby has rights, foremost among them the right to life independent of what the pregnant woman may think. Some of the implications of granting such rights upon conception in particular give me an ethical migraine. I'm not interested in discussing it publically, but shoot me an email if you want to talk about it further.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm probably way off base here, but some of the arguments I've heard for the pro-choice position are based on the fact that the baby could not survive without the mother- it is in essense a parasite. I think that's may be why partial birth abortions/late-term birth abortions often make some pro-choice people uncomfortable. Based on my understanding, these abortions are illegal to perform, correct?
I guess my ethical question is this: if artificial womb technology becomes viable, and the procedure to tranfer to them is as inexpensive and safe as an abortion, would/should all abortion then be illegal since the fetus could survive without the mother? Just kind of a question that popped into my head while reading this thread.
Note: I'm not trying to say all pro-choice supporters have the same opinion or reasoning. I'm simply stating what I have heard some of them use as an argument in the abortion arena.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess my ethical question is this: if artificial womb technology becomes viable, and the procedure to tranfer to them is as inexpensive and safe as an abortion, would/should all abortion then be illegal since the fetus could survive without the mother? Just kind of a question that popped into my head while reading this thread.
It would change the legal aspect at least somewhat, because Casey makes a clear cutoff at viability.
If we assumed that the risks associated with embryo/fetal transfer were less than or equal to the risks of abortion, then Casey could be read such that states would be allowed to require the transfer in lieu of abortion. Those are big iffs, and there's a frozen embryo case (in a state supreme court) that speaks of the right not to reproduce that might have to be examined in that case.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shouldn't the right not to reproduce be exercised at the time of not-conception? I'm not up on the particular case ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we'd also have an interesting time trying to decide who pays for the operation to transfer the fetus to the artificial womb, who pays for its upkeep, and who is responsible financially for the child after it is born.
Assuming there are sufficient numbers of adoptive parents waiting in this wings, this may not be a problem as long as part of the qualification for adoption includes having the money to pay for all this medical care.
If a woman wants an abortion and the "father" wants her to put the baby in an artificial womb, would she be required to do so? And would he or she, or both, have to pay for it?
Or, if the state forces a woman to use the artificial womb instead of having an abortion, is the fetus now a ward of the state? Or, can a judge order the pregnant couple to pay for the upkeep of their fetus, or find adoptive parents?
And let's not even open the discussion about fetuses with identifiable defects.
When I first touched on this topic (to basically put it outside the realm of things I was considering back on p2 (I think it was), I did so for a reason -- we aren't ready for this.
In my opinion, while artificial wombs or embryo transplants may solve some issues, they open us up to a whole host of other issues that are clearly goint to intensify the moral debate, not lessen it.
And the "right to not reproduce" is merely one of the many things we will have to fight over when this stuff finally does become commonplace.
I wish us all luck.
If we were smart, we'd find ways to constructively deal with the problems we have now, and use that experience to deal with the bigger problems that are coming down the pike.
I'm imagining one serious dialogue that's going to strain some definitions of pro-life and pro-choice right off the bat -- the question of who pays for the unwanted fetuses that aren't going to be adopted. At least some pro-choice folks are going to point out that they would've been more than willing to have the public pay for the abortions, but find it ludicrous that their tax dollars should go to pay for the unwanted kids. I suspect that many people who are anti-abortion now are going to take the stance that people who get pregnant are financially responsible for their offspring. But, if those people were barred by the state from getting an abortion, they might simply leave the country or file bankruptcy rather than pay for a child they didn't want. Of course, some pro-life people may argue that all of us collectively should pay for the children, which could usher in some socialist thinking into what are traditionally conservative minded folks.
I see a LOT of social upheaval over this issue, frankly.
And, actually, I think it'll do us all good.
But it could be VERY painful.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This appeal presents a question of first impression, involving the Disposition of the cryogenically-preserved product of in vitro fertilization (IVF), commonly referred to in the popular press and the legal journals as "frozen embryos." The case began as a divorce action, filed by the appellee, Junior Lewis Davis, against his then wife, appellant Mary Sue Davis. The parties were able to agree upon all terms of dissolution, except one: who was to have "custody" of the seven "frozen embryos" stored in a Knoxville fertility clinic that had attempted to assist the Davises in achieving a much-wanted pregnancy during a happier period in their relationship.
[15] I. Introduction
[16] Mary Sue Davis originally asked for control of the "frozen embryos" with the intent to have them transferred to her own uterus, in a post-divorce effort to become pregnant. Junior Davis objected, saying that he preferred to leave the embryos in their frozen state until he decided whether or not he wanted to become a parent outside the bounds of marriage.
[17] Based on its determination that the embryos were "human beings" from the moment of fertilization, the trial court awarded "custody" to Mary Sue Davis and directed that she "be permitted the opportunity to bring these children to term through implantation." The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Junior Davis has a "constitutionally protected right not to beget a child where no pregnancy has taken place" and holding that "there is no compelling state interest to justify [] ordering implantation against the will of either party." The Court of Appeals further held that "the parties share an interest in the seven fertilized ova" and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order vesting them with "joint control . . . and equal voice over their Disposition."
[18] Mary Sue Davis then sought review in this Court, contesting the validity of the constitutional basis for the Court of Appeals decision. We granted review, not because we disagree with the basic legal analysis utilized by the intermediate court, but because of the obvious importance of the case in terms of the development of law regarding the new reproductive technologies, and because the decision of the Court of Appeals does not give adequate guidance to the trial court in the event the parties cannot agree.
[19] We note, in this latter regard, that their positions have already shifted: both have remarried and Mary Sue Davis (now Mary Sue Stowe) has moved out of state. She no longer wishes to utilize the "frozen embryos" herself, but wants authority to donate them to a childless couple. Junior Davis is adamantly opposed to such donation and would prefer to see the "frozen embryos" discarded. The result is, once again, an impasse, but the parties' current legal position does have an effect on the probable outcome of the case, as discussed below.
[20] At the outset, it is important to note the absence of two critical factors that might otherwise influence or control the result of this litigation: When the Davises signed up for the IVF program at the Knoxville clinic, they did not execute a written agreement specifying what Disposition should be made of any unused embryos that might result from the cryopreservation process.
Summary of the court's decision. (Please don't think this is an adequate summary of all the issues resolved. This is the court's language, with numbering and line breaks added by me for clarity):
quote:In summary, we hold that disputes involving the Disposition of preembryos produced by in vitro fertilization should be resolved, first, by looking to the preferences of the progenitors.
[1.] If their wishes cannot be ascertained, or if there is dispute, then their prior agreement concerning Disposition should be carried out.
[2.] If no prior agreement exists, then the relative interests of the parties in using or not using the preembryos must be weighed.
[3.] Ordinarily, the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail, assuming that the other party has a reasonable possibility of achieving parenthood by means other than use of the preembryos in question.
[4.] If no other reasonable alternatives exist, then the argument in favor of using the preembryos to achieve pregnancy should be considered.
[5.] However, if the party seeking control of the preembryos intends merely to donate them to another couple, the objecting party obviously has the greater interest and should prevail.
Thanks for the clarification, I understand what you mean now.
I should have been more specific. When I say, "...trumps any potential right of the fetus to be alive," I don't just mean potential because it's a hypothetical. I mean potential in that it's up in the air entirely, so hypothetical is a better word. The pro-choice argument is founded both on denying that hypothesis, and when forced to acknowledge that hypothesis (partial-birth abortions, for exampe, although not a blanket example), founded on a refusal to acknowledge it because doing so would threaten the rights of the mother.
The pro-choice argument, to be moral in my opinion, must be founded in a certainty that aborted fetuses are not true human lives. If they are not true human lives, then what is lost is merely potential...and potential is a very cheap thing indeed. Infinite. If they are true human lives, though...well then, that's an entirely different thing, isn't it? If they are true human lives, then clearly the woman's right to determine what happens in her life should be protected and sacred much earlier in the question, shouldn't it?
The pro-choice argument is guilty of the same accusation it flings at the pro-life argument, simply that it makes a certainty out of what is only a possibility: that aborted fetuses were not true human lives. I have not heard many (any, that I can think of) who would be pro-choice if it were definitively proven beyond any doubt that aborted human fetuses were in fact true human lives.
That is what I mean when I say that the pro-choice argument boils down to the rights of the mother trumping any hypothetical rights of the unborn, or even any ONE right of the mothers to trump ALL of the hypothetical rights of the unborn.
I am not suggesting that the unborn are true human lives. What I am suggestinig is that there is some substantial possibilities that they are...and so long as that possibility exists, we should err on the side of caution. It's actually the same reason I'm not an opponent of appeals ad naseum in death penalty cases in the US justice system.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard that logical progression from you before, and it's not unreasonable. Last time, I was reluctant to agree with it but couldn't put my finger on why. I think CT's posts in this thread, though, are as good a summation of why I don't accept that logic as you're likely to find anywhere.
I also think that "erring on the side of caution," as you put it, will inevitably foster the belief that true human life begins at conception. (As an aside, from my perspective, that in itself will encourage belief in spirit or soul, which to be perfectly frank makes me somewhat uncomfortable.) I think "Erring on the side of caution" would be widely regarded as acceptance of the pro-life argument, insofar as a single argument exists; the effect would be the same (i.e. a ban on abortions with a short list of exceptions).
I think that the only viable solution in the U.S. is some sort of compromise, where morning-after pills and other very early-term abortive techniques are available but mid-term or late-term abortions are not.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I am not suggesting that the unborn are true human lives.
I would not only suggest it but assert it as a matter of concrete fact. Healthy embryos and fetuses are human, by virtue of their DNA, and they are living organisms by standard biological criteria (growth, reaction to stimuli, etc.).
The notion of conferring 'personhood' at some arbitrary point in their development is essentially a religious position, and has no place in public policy, IMO.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think one of the strongest arguments for the pro-life side is that it *is* erring on the side of caution. So refusing to accept erring on the side of caution because it will lead to adopting the pro-life stance seems funny to me.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sperm and egg are alive, and have human DNA.
There is no point at which life is NOT present.
It's all continuous, tracing back from the infant that survives to birth backward through the parents gametes, and their parents gametes, and their parents, and so on and so on.
There is no discontinuity in the passing on of life from humans to their offspring.
This is why I think that line of reasoning is not well suited to the pro-choice side of the debate.
I think there's much more to be made from acknowledging the special status of the gestational period, as I've said before.
I freely admit that the gametes, embryo and fetus are alive and human.
I also assert that gestation is not the same as already having been born.
Someone a few pages back asked something about when during gestation the soul enters, or if there's a point where we could agree that at x-1 it is not a human BEING and at x+1 it is.
I know Dagonee doesn't like my answer to this, but I will risk his disdain and repeat it anyway:
I believe that if we acknowledge the special status of the gestational period, and the reliance of the fetus for all continued growth and even instant-by-instant access to oxygen, we can arrive at a pro-choice position that is consistent with acknowledging the essential truth of biology about the human DNA in the living cells.
Or, we can go another route, also one that I personally accept, but probably doesn't please many here. That is that my personal views on it (and yours too) only matter in cases where I am a parent or potential parent. In all cases, it is up to the parents and their own moral code and conscience to decide. My take on it is both anti-abortion and pro-choice simply because the alternative (anti-abortion and anti-choice) means giving government a power I wouldn't want them to have it it were my body in which the fetus was gestating.
Thus I align myself with CT, I believe, in not wanting an abortion myself, but not being willing to tell others what they can or cannot do.
It's not going to hold up in a debate over logic, but it does get us off of the rocks in terms of arguing over whether something is alive, and whether or not it is human, and when.
Those questions, which "seem" so central, really are not. Mainly, they are not because there are really only two possible answers:
a) every step involves life. And if it isn't human life, then someone is playing a huge joke on us. or,
b) we don't know.
If a is true, then there's nothing more to talk about regarding "date of human-ness". Instead we can talk about what really matters: each individual's comfort level with either government control over people's bodies, or comfort level with ending a life (or however, you care to cast the alternatives).
If b is true, then it comes down to an endless series of arguments over something that is essentially unknowable. And we'll either reach some uncomfortable compromise (as we have now) or we'll push the "date of human-ness" forward and backward with each new change in the power structure.
I submit that really by talking about dates and stages of maturation we are just masking the real debate that needs to happen -- what do people want the government to do?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:we'll either reach some uncomfortable compromise (as we have now)
What, exactly, is the nature of the compromise we've reached now. As of now, a woman can have an abortion up until the moment of birth in all 50 states merely by asserting that it having the child will harm her mental health. What, exactly, has been compromised?
quote:what do people want the government to do?
The same thing it does with other criminal laws: defend a victim from the use of private force.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technical, but I think important, point, Bob, the sperm and egg have haploid DNA totally derived from the parent. The zygote has a full set which is different from that of either parent.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My take on it is both anti-abortion and pro-choice simply because the alternative (anti-abortion and anti-choice) means giving government a power I wouldn't want them to have it it were my body in which the fetus was gestating.
Bob -- even if you were to take government out of the equation -- so that it is "just up to the parents" as you say.
What if the parents disagree? You stated both the sperm and the egg are alive (independently until joined) and have DNA. So if you, personally, as a "person who does not want abortion" yourself, but you (hypothetically, of course) impregnate someone who does want an abortion, whose rights triumph?
posted
Presumably in such a situation the couple would have to arrive at some sort of compromise. I've stated elsewhere that I would most likely defer to the views of my partner if the question of abortion ever arose in a relationship I was in.
I'm not suggesting that that's a perfect solution or even a good solution, of course, because if both parteners were firm in their views it could easily get really unpleasant.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I guess in my thinking -- it would drag it back to "the government" in that case -- because one parent could fight the other parent in court, and they we would need a "ruling", etc. - and I just don't see how you can ever keep that from happening.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The sperm and egg are alive, and have human DNA.
They carry human DNA, but they do not meet all of the biological criteria I referenced in order to be independent living organisms, particularly in that they do not reproduce themselves. They also do not have a whole human genome (how many human beings have only 23 chromosomes?) They are merely incomplete cells of the parents' bodies.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given how often we kill other forms of life (bugs, weeds, bacteria) without a second thought, I think it would be misleading to suggest abortion is bad simply because all life is sacred. I think it must be something else, beyond simply being a living organism, that makes a given living being sacred enough to not kill.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tha fact that it's a human life? Which leads us to the same question, when does a foetus become a human being...
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, the question that must be answered before we change abortion laws is- then what? We are now introducing millions of babies into the world that are completely unwanted. Who will take care of them, make sure they are educated, become decent members of society? How many of these children are going to be starving, abused, hated? Would they be able to find any joy in life in some of these situation? So, if I were queen of the world, I would put abortion issues on the back burner and focus on fixing society. Put money into sex ed (and real sex ed- abstinance only isn't going to work though absitance should be mentioned and encouraged). Put money into the educational system in general- esp trade schools- so that people can rise above poverty. Fix the adoption and foster care system so that they are more accessible and reliable (I doubt the Desperate Housewife ending happens in most cases, but that fear probably keeps people away from adopting). Then, I have no problem changing the abortion laws. "We care so much about the rights of the unborn that we forget about the living." (can't remember where I heard that, but it stuck with me)
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We care so much about the rights of the unborn that we forget about the living."
And yet no one decrying our lack of response in Rwanda thought that, because we have an inadequate famine relief program, we shouldn't have tried to stop the killings there.
If someone believes abortion is the active killing of a human being, it makes sense for them to focus a lot of energy on gaining legal protection for the victims.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really care for the legal take on things actually, as i know a lot of people who don't break the letter of the law but who are despicable human beings.
But what we are talking about is the morality AND the legality of abortion, and some specific issues were brought up that I felt like answering.
As far as trying to equate the rights of the unborn with the rights of black during slavery, I think it falls short on many levels.
I can always ASK a slave what they need, and they answer. They had lives, as much as slave owners let them, outside and separate of their owners and their work, and no slave owner was forced to carry them around inside of their own bodies.
Also, I have a problem with equating natural with good or even desirable. We do a lot of things for ourselves that are against the natural way of life. Some help us, some harm us. Just because the natural consequence of having sex USE to be having a child doesn't mean it is the best for the person giving birth...and I don't think that anyone should have the right to chose FOR her whether to have it or not. It is too private a decision, and I fear what the consequences will be if the government gets too involved in this.
As far as Laci's law, it shouldn't be TWO crimes, although if they wanted to they could create a separate category of crimes that cause a woman to lose a child without making it a separate crime. We already have some laws that differentiate between things like that. I realize this sounds like splitting hairs, but I feel it will be a crucial point soon. Laci's law attempts to give something that was never born rights...which could pave the way for granting it FULL rights, despite not being born yet.
posted
Also, from my point of view being pro-life isn't being cautious of rightts at all. It trumps all rights from the one being we know, beyond a doubt, IS alive and a human being in favor of rights for something that may or may not be.
That may or may not ever be born at all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:... no slave owner was forced to carry them around inside of their won bodies.
I would argue that the abortion patients whose abortions most pro-lifers object to were not forced to carry their offspring, either. If a slaveowner intentionally put himself in a situation in which having a slave become physically dependent upon him was a likely outcome, I don't think that killing the slave would then become a legitimate way out.
People seem to act as though there were little zygotes flying around like pollen, attaching themselves to women at random, and forcing them to become pregnant. If that were the case, then I think abortion would be a LOT more permissable in most people's minds.
In the real world, however, there is some cause-and-effect to take into account.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The sperm and egg are alive, and have human DNA.
They carry human DNA, but they do not meet all of the biological criteria I referenced in order to be independent living organisms, particularly in that they do not reproduce themselves. They also do not have a whole human genome (how many human beings have only 23 chromosomes?) They are merely incomplete cells of the parents' bodies.
And, of course, my point was merely that they are alive and have human DNA. It's not like you can claim that they are dead, lifeless or inanimate. So, if they are alive, and came from a human, they are part of the human reproductive cycle.
I mean, really, I'm not trying to make a big deal of this, I just don't see the discontinuity of life that would allow anyone to claim that something is NOT alive, and then it is, with respect to human reproduction. Or reproduction of ANY living thing on this planet for that matter.
I think you'll find that I've been chosing my words very carefully in that respect.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:we'll either reach some uncomfortable compromise (as we have now)
What, exactly, is the nature of the compromise we've reached now. As of now, a woman can have an abortion up until the moment of birth in all 50 states merely by asserting that it having the child will harm her mental health. What, exactly, has been compromised?
quote:what do people want the government to do?
The same thing it does with other criminal laws: defend a victim from the use of private force.
Dag, are you being deliberately snarky? If you fail to see that no-one is really getting their way here, I think you've lost some perspective. In fact, as we've learned through the posts in this thread alone, abortion-on-demand is not really true. The medical quality and availability of the procedure varies widely from community to community to the point where, in some places it simply isn't there at all.
This is not what pro-choice people envisioned as th ideal? As we've said, nobody wants to put women in jeopardy for having this procedure. But it has come to pass that in many places that is exactly what happens.
I called it a defacto compromise. Nobody is happy with the way things are now. It is clearly unsatisfactory.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the criminal thing, but again, your tone would indicate that you had some point to make about criminalizing abortion as the desired end state. I'm not sure if that's what people want from their government. Maybe that's what some people want, but I was talking about a consensus opinion arrived at through dialog and some serious consideration of what would be better than the defacto compromise that we do have now -- the one I still assert is making nobody really happy.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You wrote:![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). My rephrase would be that "a woman has the right to decide what happens in her life (e.g. avoid financial hardship) with respect to pregnancy." The obvious distinction is the complete absence of even hypothetical rights for the fetus, because I don't think "the pro-choice argument," insofar as there is one, inherently recognizes any right of the unborn to be alive -- in particular, at or near conception. If there is no such right, it can't be trumped. In other words, while you feel that the result of the argument is that the rights of the fetus are trumped, that isn't the content of argument. It's the outcome or effect. 
