Ro V Wade?

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Oedipus
"But they would have no qualms about pulling the trigger on bambi when it is decidedly well past the "viable" stage. "

 You're equating a fetus with food?

Oed

think about it Oed...




Actually MT, this is the Dolphin-Tuna argument...People who buy Dolphin safe tuna because it doesnt involve killing of the cute wuvable Dolphins (not too toejam hot fot the tuna though). Some cultures eat Dolphins - to them it's just a big fish, but we are horrified they could eat Flipper. Dolphin or Tuna?

Dolphins are cute and we give them human traits therefore have a high value compared to just a fish.
A deer doesn't really compete with a lovable baby with those people.

I've seen some protesters who equate life beginning with sperm!
Imagine that, when you knock the top off it...oh the horror, the horror!



It's a woman's body, you shouldn't legislate what must happen to it.

 Tronsky

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


When the fetus becomes human is a spiritual argument.

Bottom line... a fetus is a parasite and all the rights belong to the host.

I respectfully dissagree, unequivocally on the first count, and with priviso on the second.  When a fetus becomes a human being does not necessisarily have to rely on  a spiritually driven idea.  As pointed out elsewhere in this post, there are any number of scientifically demonstrabile criteria that can be used to decide this.  It is up to society to determine which should be used.  By your definition, if taken literally, until the child leaves the womb it should not be considered a human at all (indeed, animals would have more protection under the law than the unborn human child).  Communist China in fact agrees with you: until the baby takes it's first breath outside the womb, it is not only okay to kill it, but is mandated by law if it is a second child (the "One-child policy."  My goal is not the elimination of legal abortion, by the way, but the reduction in the numbers of them.  Specifically, the elimination of abortions of convenience, undertaken for no other reason than the mother doesn't want to carry the child to term.

Which leads me to your second point, that it's the mother's choice.  Again, we agree on the principle but not on certain definitions.  In my mind, it's about personal responsibility.  If the woman is raped, for example, than an abortion should be an option for her.  After all, she had no choice (you're for choice, right?).  If she engages in consensual sex, than did she not choose to assume responsibility for the consequences of her actions?  By the way, I also believe in a man being responsible as well.  If he lends his sperm willingly to the creation of a child, he has equal responsiblity to support and care for that child.  That should also entitle him to certain rights regarding the child, such as sharing custody, if the parents aren't already co-habitating.

Again, where most people on both sides of this devisive issue differ is on the question of when an unborn child becomes a human being.  I understand your position on it.  I just wanted to explain mine, without the usual rancor and emotionalism that marks most of these debates.

[texace]

In my mind...I am Pro-Choice.

If the woman wants to abort her pregnancy in the very early stages, then it should be her choice.

Wouldn't having a law making that illegal violate a woman's rights in some way?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Can that be done?  Has it ever been done?

Has one U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling?
 
AKDejaVu

Yes, Dredd Scott.

[StSanta]

It's funny.

Here we have a bunch of men trying to tell women what to do and being perfectly safe for the consequence, since there is no chance in hell the men will suffer the consequencs of their decision.

Hell, if I had no chance at all to say have a car accident and the other  half of the population had, I'd argue passionately that seat belts should be removed from cars since they make them more expensive.

Nothing would happen to ME if it came through, and that seems to be the important part here.

Those that ought to make the decision is those that will be influenced by it.

And can the murder crap. It's rich coming from people who support the killing of imbecilles, juveniles and the mentally insane.

[Nash]

Most of the folks against abortion are the same folks claimin' they got no prollem whippin' out the scapel to excise some kinda gay gene.

erhm... gonna let the irony of that speak for itself.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Karnak
Yes, Dredd Scott.

I'm pretty sure that new post-Civil War constitutional amendments invalidated Dredd Scott, not later Supreme Court rulings.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Sabre


I respectfully dissagree, unequivocally on the first count, and with priviso on the second.  When a fetus becomes a human being does not necessisarily have to rely on  a spiritually driven idea.  As pointed out elsewhere in this post, there are any number of scientifically demonstrabile criteria that can be used to decide this.  It is up to society to determine which should be used.  By your definition, if taken literally, until the child leaves the womb it should not be considered a human at all (indeed, animals would have more protection under the law than the unborn human child

Don't mean to speak for you Sandman, but no.  That's not what he his saying at all.  It's not about leaving the womb.  It's about viability outside the womb.  At about five months the fetus becomes a viable human outside of the uterus.  Everything else is gravey.  It leads to better develope lungs etc.  It's better for the fetus if it stays in, for the most part.  But it doesn't NEED it to exist.  There is the difference.  

And I imagine, based on this thread at least, that a fair bit more thought went into the moral significance of a fetus in this state, than the moral significance of a single cell zygote.

[mjolnir]

I don't know if this has ever happened, but I think I'm going to agree with Thrawn.  For all intents and purposes, a fetus really is a parasite for over half of the typical human gestation period.  It is incapable of sustaining its own life without drawing on a host organism for protection and nurishment.  Now, as for when the fetus is able to survive on its own (albeit with lots of help from hospital machinery and doctors), I don't really know, it's not my area of expertise.  Once it is capable of living on it's own, then I'd consider it a living, breathing (once out) human being, with just as much right to live as the two people who spawned it.