Something to ponder in the Rowe vs Wade decision:

[Serapis]

I personally have few problems with abortion in the first few weeks and perhaps up through the first trimester. This is particularly the case with rape, incest and pregnant children. After that, my reservations grow.

In the first month or so I see no difference between an abortion and unplugging an accident victim with no brain activity from artifical life support. If you object to one you almost have to object to the other. If life starts at conception, even though it is unable to sustain itself outside the life-support system of the womb, then does it end when it is still functionally sustainable through external means in the hospital room? Is unplugging a brain dead motorcycle accident victim MURDER as well?

And if the abortion is in the first week, say by using the "day after pill," I see little difference compared to general birth control. We're not talking a fetus here. As Kirin posted, you get into the "every sperm is sacred" type of argument where we're all going to hell for spanking the monkey  

A casual late term abortion (which I still believe to be the exception rather than the rule in practice) is totally unacceptable to me unless the mother's life is in clear danger. The same goes, though to a lesser extent, for abortions in the second trimester.

Charon

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[Thrawn]

I notice that most of the people posting here, that are against abortion, think it's okay to abort the fetus in cases of rape.  Why do the mothers rights take precedent here and not in other cases?  

Hey Rip, any reasons why you think the answer is "No."?

[ispar]

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Controversial and sensitive subject matter, that can elevate our internal emotional feelings, so, lets keep the discussion focusing on the subject, and not personal attacks on ones opinions posted here.  My question to you is...at what point is it a fetus, and at what point is it a child?  Read on:

This is pretty amazing. Read the story first, then bring up the picture.
 

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]

I don't know. It's not my decision or responsibility, and amen to that.

And amen to a woman's right to choose.

[GRUNHERZ]

ISPAR

CHOOSE WHAT?

[Zigrat]

a woman SHOULD have the right to choose..

whether or not she engages in unprotected sex if shes not ready to have a child.

NOT her choice to abort a living human.

btw the religious wackos who are anti birth control are just that. wackos. i think i remember the catholic church being against using birth control since sex should only be for procreation lol.. cmon lets get real.

[Thrawn]

According to your government and my government a fetus isn't a living human.  C'mon lets get real.  

[StSanta]

OK, guys, let's be consequent. You gotta decide on whether you think human life is just after conception or not.

Rape, incest.

If any of the two actions result in pregnancy, is this pregnancy suddenly less of a human life than if the pregnancy occured by mistake after sex between two consenting adults?

I.e, you take the cause of the pregnancy out of the equation to look at the heart of the issue - which is that some consider it murder of a human person and some do not.

Regardless of the *cause* of the pregnancy, I find it *incredibly hard* to argue that the zygote will develop into a fetus, which might develop into a baby and so on.

Now, this is important. The little one is not guilty because of the circumstances leading to its conception. In saying it is ok for abortions during rape and incest, but not as a choice, you're essentially saying "A is A and A is not A" at the same time. In other words, "life begins and conception and all human life must be protected. But not if life at conception is started by incest or rape, then it is not life".

This is an important point. It is, IMNSHO, virtually impossible to be pro-life and accept abortion because of rape or incest if the basic premise is that it's a human that one kills by having an abortion. it is also true that this is a premise many pro-lifers live by.

If they do not, they're hyporitical or inconsistent in their argument about this.

Moving on: potential vs actual.

As one of the justices said, it is not the duty of the law to take into account the potential, but focus on the actual. I have the potential to do an awful lot of horrible things, yet I haven't been imprisoned for having this potential. Similarly, a sperm and egg has a potential for meeting up. A Zygote has a potential to develop into a fetus, which then has the potential to go through the phases and develop further. In time, it has the potential to result in a reckless totalitarian dictator which kills virtually all life on earth or a person that rid the worlds of many evils.

But we judge by the *actual*, not by the *potential*, because we cannot tell the future - it can be no other way. Think of what judging by the potential would do to a judicial system - I'll sue Ripsnort for being mean now and then, something that took away my potential to view people as all together good. Or I'll sue Toad for being civil since now I cannot fully realize my potential as a true human hater. How can you prove the potential? You cannot.

It is relevant to this debate because a zygote is not an actual person with personhood, as defined by society, but a potential such. Rewriting the law to grant personhood to zygotes would be similar to making a law that "all kids have passed puberty by age 7" - i.e a blatant lie in the face of a MASS of empirical data. A zygote does not have the attributes needed for personhood - YET. Only a potential for it.

One could argue that by rewriting the laws, you change the attributes. No longer is a person required to have a CNS etc etc, and you'll have a situation where a human cell would be viable for status as a person - it does have the potential for multiplying, all be it by duplication or cloning.

[StSanta]

Zigrat wrote:

a woman SHOULD have the right to choose..

whether or not she engages in unprotected sex if shes not ready to have a child.

NOT her choice to abort a living human.

This is an interesting and common opinion.

It deals with the *intent* of the procreation. Is the intent to have a baby (unprotected sex) or not have a baby (protected sex)?

For it to make sense, one must define the two terms protected and unprotected. if we can agree on the definitions, things get a lot easier  .

Unprotected sex comes in three forms to me:

A) Sex during which no precautions are taken to prohibit the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases.
B) Sex during which no precautions are taken to prohibit a pregnancy
D) Both A and B at the same time.

Similarly, protected sex is

D) Sex during which precautions *are* taken to prohibit the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases
E) Sex during which steps are taken to prohibit a not wanted pregnancy
F) Both D and E.

So, if a woman engages in unprotected sex according to B, according to Zigrat (not him specifically but his argument), she should be allowed to do this, but if a pregnancy occurs, she should not be allowed to terminate it.

On the other hand, if she DOES take precautions, in whatever form, according to definition E, she has clearly indicated that a pregnancy is NOT wanted. Consequently, any pregnancy as a result of this can be seen as anything ranging from nature's course (i.e the guy says "I'll pull it out before I come") to a freak accident (birth control pills and triple condoms).

In both situations, the intent of the woman is clear. She wishes to engage in sexual activities but she does not wish for it to result in a pregnancy. She is aware of the risk and tries to minimize it.

Zigrat does not mention what his stance on this is, but I believe it is similar to the one regarding unprotected sex - i.e she should not have the right to terminate the pregnancy, despite the accidental nature of it.

I'll use an analogy to illustrate why I believe this sort of reasoning is invalid.

Most of us when driving a car do not want
to have an accident and consequently an injury. We take steps to minimze the risk, such as driving carefully, being alert, staying outta the way of reckless drivers as best we can. We use safe cars and seatbelts and airbags to try to minimize the injuries suffered should an accident occur.

Should a crash occur, and should we be injured in it, we'd expect some kind of medical attention.

Now, to link the analogy into my argument...

If a pregnancy occurs as an accident, despite the intent of the woman not to have it happen, despite precautions being taken, does she not have a right to do what she can to control the consequences of the accident in *much the same way* we get medical attention to deal with the consequences of an automobile accident?

It opens a can of worms - does the women's right to control her life override the rights of a growing zygote or fetus within her body?

More in next post...

[StSanta]

I'll attempt to answer my own question with my own biased opinion and provide some background and/or evidence for it.

It is essentially a question regarding the rights of an actual sentient human versus the rights of a non sentient *potential* human, so now we're back to actual vs potential. The rule of law have established a clear precedent here and would be hard pressed to go against it; it'd risk losing coherence and credibility in doing so. The actual is always (to my knowledge) valued higher than the potential in a court of law. This would indicate that the rights of the woman supercedes the rights of a fetus, *particularly* in cases where the fetus is unwanted - i.e essentially an invading organism in the body of a woman. Brought to existence by actions taken by the woman - in a similar way that injuries to a human after a car crash are brought to existence because of the actions taken by that human prior to the crash. Both could have been prevented, but weren't, and in both cases we deal with consequences that are unwanted.

I'll be a little facetious and daring here.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Parasite \Par"a*site\, n. [F., fr. L. parasitus, Gr. ?, lit., eating beside, or at the table of, another; ? beside + ? to
feed, from ? wheat, grain, food.]

3. (Zo["o]l.)
(a) An animal which lives during the whole or part of its existence on or in the body of some other animal, feeding upon its food, blood, or tissues, as lice, tapeworms, etc.
(b) An animal which steals the food of another, as the parasitic jager.

From WordNet (r) 1.6 :
parasite
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on another and from which it obtains nourishment [ant: host]

Heheh, you get my point. I'm arguing, just to raise some controversy, that an unwanted zygote or fetus could be seen as a foreign organism which obtains nourishments from a host - i.e a parasite  . A human parasite, but a parasite nonetheless. Don't pick this part of my argument apart, it's meant to be more of a thought provoker than anything.

Ok, next step on my agenda:

Human life vs A human life

What constitutes human life? In the broad sense of the definition, that'd include "life built on DNA belonging to the human species". As such, humans cells are human life; our hands, fingers, toes, guts and so forth are human life. Cancer cells growing indefinitely long after its human carrier is dead is human life. Human hair wouldn't be human life, since it'd be dead, but it'd *definitely* be *human*.

A human, however, is more than just human life. It's the combination of a multitude of parts where the result is greater than the sum of its parts. It's more than just human life in the sense that a human clearly is more than a group of cancerous cells.

So, the woman is an *actual* human, an alive, sentient being. The zygote or fetus, while clearly human, is only a *potential* human being.

It is therefore clear to me that the rights of the actual sentient human supercedes the rights of the potential human, or said in other words, the rights of a human being supercedes the rights of human life (which there aren't many of). Human life does not have the right to life, for instance.

Off the soap box. I've let some things out trying to keep the text volume down, but it turned out as more than i wanted anyhow. I just feel that an explanation or stance on this subject is much more complex than simply "it's murder, no it's not"

[SOB]

more...

[Sandman]

No argument from me Santa. I think you nailed it. I've considered the parasite/host relationship but haven't had the courage to post it. Even in a healthy pregnancy, the woman's immune system is busily trying to kill off the fetus. One of the functions of the placenta is to protect the fetus from that immune system.

If the government decides to make abortions illegal, then the next step is to define ALL of the exceptions and exclusions. The simple and fairest way is to keep it pro-choice and leave it up to the woman (and hopefully her mate) to decide if they wish to take the fetus to term.

If your own moral compass won't allow you to abort a pregnancy, then don't.

[ispar]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
ISPAR

CHOOSE WHAT?

What is normally meant by that line, grunherz. Whether or not they should abort a fetus, child whatever you call it. The moral discussion and debate on whether a fetus is a human life that deserves protection or not is too sensitive and personal a top, with too many different viewpoints, to give over the government. If you find it wrong, fine. Don't do it. Complain about it. But don't take away someone's right to choose whether or not they want to give birth to new life when they don't want to or aren't ready.

[ispar]

Agree with Sandman, StSanta. You hit it on the head.

[Zigrat]

I cant argue that a fetus isnt a parasite, it is

OK im going to do 2 comparisons:

1) when you fly on an airpane, you accept there is a risk of crash. You may try to reduce risk of unjury in a crash by checking up on past histor of your airline, checking reported saftey violations with the NTSB, etcera. Flying is not necessary, but convient, fun, or whatever it is to you.

2) when you have sex, you accept there is a risk that the woman (or if you are the woman, you) will get pregnant. You may try to reduce the risk of this by using birth control (in one of its various forms)

now in the case of the airplane, a crash may still happen. Well, you get hurt, or die. You can't abort dying. You accept the consequences of your choice.

in the case of sex, you or your partner may become pregnant. The consequences should be the same: youre not allowed to abort.

Live with your actions. Accept your responsibilities.

I will give another example. I know someone (i wont say who) who was actually considering an abortion. I talked to them, and dissuaded them (she really didnt need much dissuading, though she is pro choice). Lets just say that I love the product of that pregnancy very much, and there would be a big hole in my life if the abortion had taken place.

Like I said, its a womans right to choose to remain celebate if pregnancy isnt wanted. Its a woman's right to choose if she wants to give up the child for adoption if she cannot or is not willing to support it.

But it is not a choice, but a RESPONSIBILITY to bring the baby to term.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Zigrat:
But it is not a choice, but a RESPONSIBILITY to bring the baby to term.

No, actually it is a choice, and I for one hope is stays that way.  Your comparison to risking death in an airline crash is rediculous.  So, if there was a way to "abort" dying in the crash you'd be against it, because you took the risk of flying and should live (die) with the consequences?  But whatever, that's beside the point entirely.

You don't like abortions, you don't think they're right?  Great, don't have one.  Oh wait, that's right, you're not a woman so you CAN'T have one.  Nor could you possibly understand all of the reasons behind why a woman would be willing to have an abortion.

Like you, I feel abortions are wrong.  Unlike you, I believe it's a woman's right to choose, and it's none of my business what she does with her body.


SOB