What's your take on abortions?

[Testiculese]

Something Foil keeps saying that I kept missing, but subconsciously was nagging at me until I focused on it. \"Life begins at conception\" is a completely false statement.

Life began billions of years ago. It's a continuous process. Life doesn't start at conception, the egg is alive, the sperm is alive. When they join, everything was already alive. The introduction of both sides of DNA just initiates a state change, chemically triggering the dividing mechanism. It doesn't start life. Eventually, a subset of two people will emerge as an independent entity.

I forget who mentioned it first, but a nice clear-cut definition of personhood would be brainwave activity. When does that happen, anyway? For some people like Acecombat, I think it's going on 30 years with hardly a spark.

[Bet51987]

.

[snoopy]

"Life begins at conception" is a completely false statement.

Life began billions of years ago. It's a continual process. Life doesn't start at conception, the egg is alive, the sperm is alive. When they join, everything was already alive. It just initiates a state change. The introduction of both sides of DNA triggers the dividing mechanism, it doesn't start life.

I forget who mentioned it first, but a nice clear-cut definition of personhood would be brainwave activity. When does that happen, anyway? For some people, I think it's going on 30.

If you want to be technical, insert "invidivual human life," and you have a debatable thing.

We're still getting around the the question of a political definition of the beginning of an individual human being's life. The problem is, any definition that you could come up with will step on someone's shoes, if it is going to be consistently applied. So, you have three options:

1. Don't define it, and simply let the popular opinion of the day rule. This may be the easiest, and the mostly likely to keep yourself in office, but it will inevitably lead to government sanctioned crimes against humanity under someone's personally chosen definition. I don't like this for defensive reasons- because some day some nut might manage to convince the majority of a given society that I'm not a human, and thus be culturally justified in killing me.

2. Give it a loose definition, allowing for exceptions. This is quite possibly the worst option, as it polilitically alienates some people in the name of doing better than option #1, but in the end it's only done in name and you are effectively still at option #1, in the long term.

3. Rigorously define it, with an aim at preventing any false negatives, and rigorously enforce the law-related implications. This is certainly the most unpopular options, because it means more pain, cost and inconvience to all of us, but at the same time, it's the most responsible way to prevent one from doing harm to (possibly) another human being.

[Testiculese]

Using \"life\" there is more of a common-language thing which leads to confusion. Sentience is probably a more proper term. (Most animals are sentient, I think people use that term incorrectly?)

(btw, never quote me within a 1/2 hour of my post, I always end up editing it )

[Foil]

Life begins at conception" is a completely false statement.

Life began billions of years ago. It's a continuous process. Life doesn't start at conception, the egg is alive, the sperm is alive. When they join, everything was already alive.

Snoopy clarified what I meant, but you're right, I should be more definite in the terminology I use.

[Skyalmian]

[Lothar]

I could give you a time but for what purpose. You will just tell me its the wrong time.

All thread you've been standing up for what you believe... and now you've decided that you can't state your position for fear that Kilarin will disagree with you? Now you've decided that, instead of being principled and expressing your own moral convictions, you have to act "at any cost" (utterly disregarding your convictions) to offset people whose beliefs seem to differ from yours perhaps only by a matter of a few hours or days? Come on... that's weaksauce.

Your either pro-life or pro-choice so the limit I set for the 13 year old rape victim, doesn't count.

It might not matter in the upcoming election... but it certainly does matter for the discussion we're having right now. You're selling yourself short if you think your views don't matter.

[Lothar]

Way back on page 1, Flabby Chick wrote:

all i ever see [Americans] talk about is bloody abortion...

A bit of history will explain that.

For the most part, our laws come about through debate, the vote of the people, compromise by legislators, refinement of the law through voter feedback, and so forth. Back in the 60's, as abortion became a medical possibility, we started into that process. There were debates, elections, and legislative compromises.

And then, in the early 70's, a young girl named Norma McCorvey lied about being raped, and set up a lawsuit challenging the Texas law prohibiting her from having an abortion. She had her baby while the case was still going on, but eventually the case reached the Supreme Court (as Roe v. Wade.) The court decided that, because people have the right to privacy in their medical care, abortion was a legal right so long as either the fetus was not viable OR there was a \"medical reason\" to have an abortion. In another decision, Doe v. Bolton, the court decided that \"medical reason\" included physical, emotional, psychological, and familial factors, which ensured basically unrestricted access to abortion.

That's why it became such a contentious issue -- the courts simply mandated it, on shaky \"privacy\" and \"medical\" grounds. There was no compromise, no \"will of the people\", no attempt to balance the dual considerations of the life of the mother with the life of the child, just an absolute proclamation that abortion is OK with no real restrictions.

Once that decision was made, the nation quickly polarized. On the one side, you had people who claimed that any restriction whatsoever is a violation of women's rights. On the other side, you had people who claimed that any abortion whatsoever is murder. And people in the middle were insulted by both sides.

This led to some of the strange incongruities others pointed out way back on page 1 of this thread: people who won't swat a fly because \"all life is precious\" or because of \"karma\", but who will kill a two-pound human fetus minutes before birth because \"it's the woman's body\". You get people who don't trust oil or pharmacy companies or even Wal*Mart, but implicitly trust the billion-dollar abortion industry. And you get people who think it's wrong to kill a 4-cell organism because of its potential, while thinking nothing of bombing foreign countries because \"they're just a bunch of worthless [Japs / Arabs / Commies].\"

I think we as a society are just now reaching the point where a reasonable compromise might be possible. We're just now reaching the point where many generally pro-choice people are willing to concede that late-term abortions are questionable at best (and that killing a pregnant woman should be tried as a double murder). We're just now reaching the point where many generally pro-life people are willing to concede that no, they're not really 100% sure that a fertilized egg should have the same legal protections as a live baby, and that maybe certain very early-term abortions might be acceptable. We're just now reaching a point where we can have this discussion on a message board and not have it devolve completely into a flamewar by the twelfth post.

Maybe there's hope for us after all.

[Kilarin]

Kilarin.. I could give you a time but for what purpose. You will just tell me its the wrong time. Foil allows time zero as he already stated so your question of "X" time is pointless.

You feel very strongly about protecting the innocent. I admire you for that. And I understand why you are upset, it's a very upsetting topic. BUT, you are so upset that you are missing the point. Pull back for just a minute, take a deep breath, and I'll try again.

The vast majority of people feel that the point at which killing a child becomes murder is sometime before birth. They will disagree on exactly when, but it's sometime before birth

You are very upset that some of us have said we would tell the 13 year old rape victim not to get an abortion immediately after conception. But YOU would tell the 13 year old rape victim EXACTLY the same thing, just at a different point in time.

What we are trying to say is that YES, we disagree on when that point is, but that is the ONLY point of disagreement. There is no ethical difference between Foil telling the 13 year old girl she must have the baby after conception, Someone else saying that she must have the baby if it's 40 days old, another after the first trimester, and some other person might put the point all the way to the second trimester. They are all telling the poor child it must suffer for the sake of the OTHER child.

We disagree on the WHEN, but we DON'T disagree that, at some point, even if it were your own daughter, you would want to protect your grandchild as much as you would want to protect your child.

SO, for those of us who agree that abortion becomes murder sometime before birth, the "would you tell that poor young girl to have the baby" story really isn't relevant. It may help illustrate WHEN we feel that the point is, but since All of us would tell her that "at some point", it doesn't help with WHY we feel that particular point is the correct one.

And, I'll ask one more time. This was a VERY difficult question. You insisted that Foil and I give you an answer, and we did. I think you owe it to YOURSELF to answer the same question. When would you choose your grandchild's needs over your child's? I WOULD like to hear the answer, but while this topic is upsetting to ALL of us, it seems especially upsetting to you. So I won't ask again for you to answer it here in the forums, keep the information private if you feel the need. But I do think you should answer it for yourself.

If anything, this Dbb has taught me over the years that I'm a dishonest, baby killing, atheist who now has voting priveleges and may run away with one of your sons as you fire your shotgun at me...

I don't think you are dishonest. I disagree with most of the planet on when abortion is murder. I'm not certain your a very good atheist, because if God isn't there, you couldn't be MAD at him.

And I'm very sorry you are still feeling sore about the entire "would you let me marry your son" bit. As I said before, if YOU were my daughter, and still an atheist, I would NOT advise you to marry a Christian. It's important to agree on general life goals, and for a serious Christian, their religion affects their entire life. For that matter, if you wanted to have children, and my son did not, (or vise versa) I wouldn't recommend the two of you get married. Same reasoning. There is no reason to go into marriage with a handicap like that. Telling you anything else might have made you feel good, but it wouldn't have been honest, OR good advice.

Please note that's RECOMMEND, not FORBID. Who my son marries will be his own choice, and whether I recommended the union or not, I will accept them into my family as my daughter.

Oh, and he's only eight, so it's not legal for you to seduce him YET!

When the baby exits her, that's when it's no longer only hers,

So, just to clarify here. You are saying that if a mother, 9 months pregnant, in the middle of labor, decided she wanted an abortion, you think the law should allow it. BUT, 10 minutes later, after the child has actually exited the womb, any person who stuck a needle into that baby's head and sucked it's brains out should be given the death penalty for murder. Am I misunderstanding you here?

Maybe there's hope for us after all.

Excellent overview, and I certainly hope so.

[Capm]

Logic and reason, not irrational over-emotionalism, please. You just called any woman who's had more than one period a serial killer.

How did I do that? Do the eggs fertilize themselves? This isn't irrational over-emotionalism, or niaevity, this is what I believe.

Perhaps my wording wasn't specific enough, as I can see through later posts, you get all lawyer-esque about defining every word in a sentance rather than making a rational arguement, but I'll get to that later.

I'm on your side, but I DO think you need to re-evaluate that statement. I don't think you meant it the way it came out. I've had too many friends lose children to miscarriages, and, as Testiculese points out, many fertilized eggs fail to implant or are lost so early that the miscarriage is never even noticed.

Probably would be better stated as "A fertilized egg IS a baby".

You are right, I should reword that. What I mean is, there is no natural elective means of termination. Either the child survives pregnancy and is born or doesn't. Nature determines this, not the person.

Life is precious?? Where do you get that idea? How were those eggs this morning? How was that steak last night? I don't see you holding a funeral for the squirrel you ran over last night.

OH...I get it, only human life is precious. How convenient! How inconsistent.

Yes, all life is precious, sentient or not. Animal or plant, doesn't matter. But my eating eggs and steak is just nature taking its course, they are prey, and I am a predator. But that doesn't give me a right to tie down a squirrel and attatch electrodes to its nuts or otherwise cause it to have a slow unnatural, cruel death.

What about this? A 21yo girl is pregnant. The government wants her to have the baby, she begs and begs to not have it. It will destroy her life. Should the government still "force" their personal ideals on her?

Destroy her life? How? It might change her life, but destroy is a term used in this instance by the selfish. My Life. My stuff, my this my that. Thats all that amounts to is selfishness. A child does not destroy your life, it is an addition, a change, maybe even transformation, but not to destroy. Adoption is always an option.

Besides, if life is so precious, then why is it that everything that is ever born, dies? Usually badly.

Death is just a part of life. Its not the end, but that, is a debate for another thread.

any girl who got forcibly raped, no matter how old she was, would be denied any form of emergency contraception.

Capm.... Would you scream that at the young girl in the link in my previous post?

Now, its my understanding that the "morning after" pill prevents fertilization, and therefore wouldn't be an "abortion pill" so wouldn't this be the acceptible solution here? Also, If I recall correctly from biology, fertilization can take up to 3 to 5 days to occur, which is what gives those pill the time to work.

But my stance would remain unchanged if a pregnancy did occur.

If anything, a human foetus is less sentinent than an animal!
Moreso, you don't even know if wild animals are sentinent or not!

Basing a lifes worth on intelligence level is, in my opinion, a dumb thing to do in the first place anyway. Also, anyone who's spent any amount of time with animals knows that they are sentient.

It has yet to be demonstrated that the human body has been designed to do anything or been designed at all. Perhaps you are one who sees final causes in nature?

I don't even know what that means.

Let's ignore the glaring factual errors that have already been pointed out for now and just look at the form of your argument. If X will always develop into a Y, then X is a Y? Do you have any reason to think that this is the case? You are naturally always going to develop into a corpse. When should we hold your funeral?

You are overrationalizing and missing the point.


Testi, everything you've said on page 5 is complete obfuscation and avoidance of the sole issue because why? You can't come up with an arguement that won't get holes shot in it?

I would go on, but I'm getting bitched at by my wife because apparently I'm taking too long posting. *sigh*

[Jeff250]

When the baby exits her, that's when it's no longer only hers,

So, just to clarify here. You are saying that if a mother, 9 months pregnant, in the middle of labor, decided she wanted an abortion, you think the law should allow it. BUT, 10 minutes later, after the child has actually exited the womb, any person who stuck a needle into that baby's head and sucked it's brains out should be given the death penalty for murder. Am I misunderstanding you here?

And I'll submit that that argument can be made for any point in fetal development. One second, the law would allow an abortion, the next, first degree murder could be charged. This is why we need to reject the on-or-off status of human life during fetal development.

You are overrationalizing and missing the point.

OK, so please indulge me. Clearly set out your argument, leaving out the hidden premises.

[Flabby Chick]

Insert the stuff you wrote

Are you saying that the American population is debating the the way the laws were passed with regards to abortion rather than the actual subject itself? And if so do you agree that political sides are keeping this on a low heat for their own benefit..a la what Will was saying earlier on? (never heard of that case (obviously)...cheers Tom)

Also...how and why is the American "Abortion Industry" a billion dollar one? (Probably off topic this)

[Lothar]

Are you saying that the American population is debating the the way the laws were passed with regards to abortion rather than the actual subject itself?

Not quite. What I'm saying is, the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds and shortcut the entire process of reason, debate, and compromise in lawmaking, which polarized the issue so much that 44 years later it's still one of the most hotly debated issues in American politics. Had abortion laws come about in a more sensible and legally valid manner (which would've led to a more sensible conclusion) the issue wouldn't be nearly as inflammatory or "weird" as it is now.

Just one example: a doctor can't give a 16-year-old girl an aspirin without parental consent. But that same girl can have an abortion (a surgical procedure) completely secretly. Every time a state tries to pass a law to require parental notification (not consent, merely notification) for abortion for minors, we get all kinds of lawsuits and the supreme court finding that it places an "undue burden" on abortion providers, and Planned Parenthood celebrates a victory for "Women's rights" by denying a mother the right to know about a medical procedure being performed on her minor child. The people who wanted/voted for parental notification get labelled as "anti-woman extremists". Isn't that ridiculous?

do you agree that political sides are keeping this on a low heat for their own benefit..a la what Will was saying earlier on?

The main reason it remains on "low heat" is that, because it came about by judicial fiat, the only way to change it is through judicial fiat. Candidates can talk big about it either way (and rally one side's extreme while alienating the moderates or vice-versa), but the only time it really matters is in appointing Supreme Court justices, because they're the only people who have the authority to say "oops, Roe v Wade was wrongly decided" and re-open the door to sensible abortion laws. Until such time as that happens, we're stuck with unrestricted abortion, and we're stuck with Planned Parenthood getting their panties in a bunch when a pregnant woman is killed and someone's tried for double murder because they worry it'll set a precedent for challenging Roe v Wade.

how and why is the American "Abortion Industry" a billion dollar one?

Ignoring all the ethical and moral questions, abortions are simple surgeries, normally performed by doctors (or, anyway, people who make doctor-like salaries.) About three thousand are performed every day in the US -- that's about a million a year. I'd be surprised if it was only costing people a thousand dollars per abortion (by "people" I mean individuals, insurance providers, and taxpayers.) That might be the most absurd thing of all -- despite the fact that the majority of Americans have at least some moral problems with some abortions, our tax dollars go to fund them.

I hope it's becoming clearer why this is such a big issue for Americans. A lot of bull went into Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and many of the related laws, and normal people who want sensible laws can't do a thing about it except watch their tax dollars go to fund something they think is immoral. (It's like, if you took all the same arguments people made against the Iraq war, made it go on for 40 years longer, upped the body count to about 50 million innocents, and didn't even take out a crazed dictator.)

[DCrazy]

Not quite. What I'm saying is, the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds and shortcut the entire process of reason, debate, and compromise in lawmaking, which polarized the issue so much that 44 years later it's still one of the most hotly debated issues in American politics.

Others will say that the Supreme Court interpreted existing law. The main argument for this statement, instead of your version, is that no new law was passed, since the Supreme Court does not have that power.

Had abortion laws come about in a more sensible and legally valid manner (which would've led to a more sensible conclusion) the issue wouldn't be nearly as inflammatory or "weird" as it is now.

See above. No abortion law was created by any Supreme Court decision.

Just one example: a doctor can't give a 16-year-old girl an aspirin without parental consent.

Totally and completely false. Under HIPAA, purchasing OTC medications such as aspirin is a decision that can be made by a minor and as such (strictly speaking) the pharmacy, doctor, healthcare practice, HMO, etc. are all prohibited from disclosing that information to the parent. Schools, however, are forbidden from dispensing medication by other statutes.

But that same girl can have an abortion (a surgical procedure) completely secretly. Every time a state tries to pass a law to require parental notification (not consent, merely notification) for abortion for minors, we get all kinds of lawsuits and the supreme court finding that it places an "undue burden" on abortion providers, and Planned Parenthood celebrates a victory for "Women's rights" by denying a mother the right to know about a medical procedure being performed on her minor child.

Yet that hasn't stopped Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming from mandating parental consent (these states still have these laws on the books). In fact, the only states that do not require either parental consent or notification are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Washington DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

To tally that up, 34 of 51 states/district, or two-thirds, require either parental consent or notification.

The people who wanted/voted for parental notification get labelled as "anti-woman extremists". Isn't that ridiculous?

And the people who vote against the legislation get labeled as baby-killers. And the people who perform abortions get blowed up by Fundamentalist Christian terrorists. Isn't that ridiculous?

The main reason it remains on "low heat" is that, because it came about by judicial fiat, the only way to change it is through judicial fiat. Candidates can talk big about it either way (and rally one side's extreme while alienating the moderates or vice-versa), but the only time it really matters is in appointing Supreme Court justices, because they're the only people who have the authority to say "oops, Roe v Wade was wrongly decided" and re-open the door to sensible abortion laws. Until such time as that happens, we're stuck with unrestricted abortion, and we're stuck with Planned Parenthood getting their panties in a bunch when a pregnant woman is killed and someone's tried for double murder because they worry it'll set a precedent for challenging Roe v Wade.

The Supreme Court didn't make any laws. It also didn't strike down any federal laws.

Ignoring all the ethical and moral questions, abortions are simple surgeries, normally performed by doctors (or, anyway, people who make doctor-like salaries.) About three thousand are performed every day in the US -- that's about a million a year. I'd be surprised if it was only costing people a thousand dollars per abortion (by "people" I mean individuals, insurance providers, and taxpayers.) That might be the most absurd thing of all -- despite the fact that the majority of Americans have at least some moral problems with some abortions, our tax dollars go to fund them.

Many insurance companies cover abortions, so the only cost to the recipient is a copay. And where the hell are you getting this "taxpayer-funded" idea? The only generally-available healthcare plan that is federally funded, Medicaid, does not cover abortions as per the Hyde Amendment of 1976.

By the way, surgeons are not doctors, per se. They're usually paid by the procedure. In this case, the average cost of an abortion procedure is $372.

I hope it's becoming clearer why this is such a big issue for Americans. A lot of bull went into Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and many of the related laws, and normal people who want sensible laws can't do a thing about it except watch their tax dollars go to fund something they think is immoral. (It's like, if you took all the same arguments people made against the Iraq war, made it go on for 40 years longer, upped the body count to about 50 million innocents, and didn't even take out a crazed dictator.)

Again with the imaginary taxpayer funding. None of your federal tax dollars are funding abortions. Only seventeen states cover abortions under state-financed Medicaid.

[Lothar]

the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds and shortcut the entire process of reason, debate, and compromise in lawmaking, which polarized the issue

Others will say that the Supreme Court interpreted existing law.
[snip]
The Supreme Court didn't make any laws. It also didn't strike down any federal laws.

The Supreme Court interpreted (some would say "misinterpreted") existing law (specifically, the Constitution) as guaranteeing privacy in medical decisions. They further interpreted abortions as medical/health decisions, under a very broad definition of "health". I explained all of this a couple posts ago.

Calling it "interpretation", while technically correct, doesn't change the fact that they shortcut the entire process of reason, debate, and compromise in lawmaking as well as removing voter feedback. Saying they didn't create any law or strike down any federal law, while technically correct, doesn't change the fact that they declared abortion-on-demand was constitutionally guaranteed and struck down dozens of state laws in the process of creating a de facto federal law.

It's particularly important to understand that by claiming to interpret the Constitution rather than lesser laws, the SC made it extremely difficult for any other branch of the government to restrict abortions. It's not like Congress or individual states could just pass an abortion law to change the results of Roe v Wade or Doe v Bolton; they'd actually have to amend the Constitution, which is a fairly difficult prospect. Technically speaking they didn't pass an "abortion law", but for all practical purposes those two decisions act as a federal abortion-on-demand law.

I hope my blatant use of the word "technically" made the point clearly: however you want to phrase it, the end result is that the Supreme Court set up abortion-on-demand as an effectively unchallengeable, unamendable, compromise-free federal law. The voting public can't even vote the bums out -- if we disagree, we have to wait for a SC Justice to retire or die and then hope the President's next SC appointment "interprets" the Constitution more to our liking. And if that judge turns out to be too extreme in either direction, it'll be another 20 years before we get another chance to undo the damage his new "interpretation" does. That's just not the way the de facto "law of the land" should be made, on any subject. (Flabby, you wanted to know why Americans talk about it so much. Does this answer your question?)

But that same girl can have an abortion (a surgical procedure) completely secretly.

that hasn't stopped [many states] from mandating parental consent

Thanks for the information. I'm glad to hear parental consent laws are actually currently allowed; last I'd heard they were being challenged because they imposed "undue burden" (as recently as 2005.) I was in error on the details, though the broader point I was making is correct: even such limited restrictions to abortion are heavily challenged. Again, that shows how ridiculously polarized the debate is, in large part because we're dealing with judicial fiat instead of legislative compromise.

where the hell are you getting this "taxpayer-funded" idea?

Planned Parenthood -- the nation's largest abortion provider -- recieves about a quarter of a billion in federal funding from various sources, amounting to about a third of their total budget (in 2003.) They claim to use that portion of their funding on other services (counseling, advertising, operating expenses, etc.), while the funding for actual abortions comes from other sources, but that's basically clever bookkeeping. It's the sort of splitting hairs I doubt you'd accept from a religious organization recieving federal funding.

The people who wanted/voted for parental notification get labelled as "anti-woman extremists". Isn't that ridiculous?

And the people who vote against the legislation get labeled as baby-killers...

I almost wrote that in my post, too. It fits right into what I said -- it's utterly ridiculous how polarizing the issue is. Far more than it needs to be, in large part because of Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court's extremely broad definition of "health".

With most significant, controversial political issues facing this country, over the course of time, we'll vote in representatives who will pass laws that take all sides into account and come out with a reasonable compromise. But with abortion, no matter what representatives we vote for, the final decision comes down to the final "swing" justice on the Supreme Court, who may not change for an entire generation, and whose legal opinion might be extreme in one way or another. Having a controversial de facto law that can only be changed by constitutional amendment or a change in the Supreme Court is, overall, a bad thing. It doesn't leave room for the sort of compromise that is so badly needed.

[Kilarin]

Destroy her life? How? It might change her life, but destroy is a term used in this instance by the selfish. My Life. My stuff, my this my that. Thats all that amounts to is selfishness. A child does not destroy your life, it is an addition, a change, maybe even transformation, but not to destroy. Adoption is always an option.

Ohh! Well said! Hard, but very true.

You are saying that if a mother, 9 months pregnant, in the middle of labor, decided she wanted an abortion, you think the law should allow it. BUT, 10 minutes later, after the child has actually exited the womb, any person who stuck a needle into that baby's head and sucked it's brains out should be given the death penalty for murder

And I'll submit that that argument can be made for any point in fetal development. One second, the law would allow an abortion, the next, first degree murder could be charged. This is why we need to reject the on-or-off status of human life during fetal development.

So far in this discussion, 3 points have been argued for distinguishing between personhood and non-personhood. Conception, Brainwave, and Birth. Of these three, only the last shows no significant change in the state of the infant related to personhood.

Conception is an obvious and complete change in state from sperm and ovum to a zygote with the DNA to make up an individual person. The beginning of a brain wave is, again, a significant change in state for the embryo, it has begun brain activity and become a creature that is beginning (but only beginning) to think.

BOTH of these can be argued to be a change in the very nature of the infant, a switch from one kind of thing, into another. There is certainly room for argument on whether either one indicates personhood, but they are certainly the KIND of changes that we should be looking for to indicate personhood.

But while the step between living in the womb and living outside of it is certainly significant to us, it involves NO changes in anything that we dare use to define someone as a person.

Arguments traditionally used to support personhood at birth:

At Birth a child begins to breathe:
So people on a Heart-Lung Machine aren't persons? They get their blood through direct oxygenation, bypassing the lungs, just like an infant in the womb.

Before Birth a child does not eat on it's own.
Now we've eliminated everyone who is being fed intravenously.

At Birth the child becomes independent
Hardly. Leave that infant alone and it will die.
Since babies are viable now at a mere 24 weeks, with a few survivors at 21, it's obvious that the Baby is CAPABLE of being independent long before most births.
Defining persons by the ability to live independently would eliminate Steven Hawkings and a whole crowd of people with severe handicaps from personhood. As well as many of the elderly.
Perhaps we can define it more rigidly so that to be a person you must be able to live without requiring sustenance and maintenance from another's organs, that should be safe, right? Oops, it means Siamese Twins are no longer persons. Too bad for them.

Conception and brainwave are both arguable points, but both involve a change of state in something that is clearly involved in personhood. But NOTHING changes at birth that does not exist in both states in creatures already widely considered to be persons.

[TIGERassault]

If you see no value in life, or no difference between a human kid and a goat kid, then there isn't really a whole lot further we can go with this discussion.

If you see no difference between a human kid and a human foetus in terms of how valuable its life is to others, then there isn't really a whole lot further we can go with this discussion

[Lothar]

I forgot to add one more thing last night:

Abortion law is unusual in that it relies so heavily on a narrow (5-4) Supreme Court majority. A lot of people either hope or worry that a future Supreme Court retirement/appointment will lead to a 5-4 majority the other way and overturn Roe v Wade and completely illegalize abortion. I wrote a lot in my last post about how difficult it is to introduce even small limits to abortion (parental notification, partial-birth abortion bans, etc. are routinely challenged in court.) On the flip side, it only takes one person in the right position to \"interpret\" the Constitution differently and throw the whole thing in reverse. And there's only opportunity to replace such a person once per generation.

So we've got an unchallengeable, unamendable, compromise-free federal mandate allowing restriction-free abortion, and the most commonly envisioned scenario is for a new SC justice to turn it into an unchallengeable, unamendable, compromise-free federal mandate making all abortion illegal. This just cries out \"bad law\".

[Bet51987]

.

[Duper]

Secondly, I wanted my 13 year old rape victim (that survived) to be able to abort when she was brought to the hospital by her dad which in my scenario was a matter of hours not months. I have other scenarios too but they become pointless if I cannot get past the pro-life advocates who won't give me one second after the rape.

Bet, this just doesn't happen that often. If a 13 y/o IS raped and lives, she normally doesn't tell anyone for a long time. If she does tell someone right away, they don't need to have \"abortion clearance\". A standard procedure called a \"DNC\" would be preformed. This is done this all the time. That's where they go in and scrape off the lining of the uterus. It's done by a doctor and in a facility that has equipment available if something goes wrong. Most abortion clinics do not.

[Kilarin]

since pro-lifers are unwilling to compromise I will vote for pro-choice at any time to combat the other side.

I consider myself a pro-lifer, and my push for a legal standard of 40 days is closer to your 8 weeks than it is to conception. So I wouldn't eliminate the possibility of reaching a rational legal standard between the two sides. I'm not real hopeful, but it is possible. It's certainly worth striving for.

Thank you for your answer. It's a difficult question.

Believe me, as a girl, it will destroy her childhood. 13 years old. No teen parties, no invites, no sleepovers, no nothing. Always pointed at, laughed at, disappearing friends, insulting text messages, etc etc.a

Sounds a lot like my childhood, except for the text messages, I'm OLD.

Seriously, yes, you are absolutely correct that it will be devastating, it will cause all kinds of problems and hardships. She will miss out on many things and have difficulties that other children never even dream of. It's something that should NOT have happened. But, it's also something that she CAN survive, even thrive through.

Me, I'm for concentrating on preventing the rape in the first place, then we don't have to worry about the pregnancy at all. A few changes to make our legal system more rational could go a LONG way towards accomplishing that goal. And as a parent, eternal diligence is our watch word.

[TIGERassault]

First up, Bet, I think you're over-generalising. I hardly think that just because a country restricts abortions, suddenly all emergency contraceptions are completely banned. In fact, I can't even think of a single country that does so.

Capm.. Believe me, as a girl, it will destroy her childhood. 13 years old. No teen parties, no invites, no sleepovers, no nothing. Always pointed at, laughed at, disappearing friends, insulting text messages, etc etc. The last thing a parent would want is their kids hanging around with a pregnant teen. You however, will fare pretty well...

Yup. She won't be able to do anything like that for, oh, about 6 months. You forgot about abortions, haven't you?

Hey, wait a second! I never did any of those things when I was 13! Does that mean that I had no childhood?
And as far as my teenage experience goes, I wouldn't expect anyone else to try to really put her down like you just listed just because she's pregnant.

[Jeff250]

Kilarin, I'm not a fan of the birth criterion either. But I'm not convinced that we should be looking for any such cusps in fetal development, even ones that are related to personhood. An event like the first neuron firing is useful for organizing things into categories and creating charts. But that doesn't necessarily make it any more favorable for defining personhood than, say, the second neuron firing.

[Bet51987]

.

[Duper]

I know that but in many states the minor is under control of the parent and must have their permission for that procedure so if they are pro-life parents without limits, then nothing will save her.

wait, what??

Why is this a BAD thing?? If my 13 year old was raped. I'd WANT to know. I would also want to make sure that she got help; both physical and psychological. It's foolishness that tries to tell us that a child does not need to tell us about such things. Anyone that does is either not a parent or does not love their kids.

I have yet to meet a 13 year old (or any teen that age) that is able to make solid decision when comes to a stressful situation. This would be equivalent to being shot at. Most adults can't deal with that. The industry is putting this idea forth and it's dangerous. Read Lothar's posts on the industries motives.

[Bet51987]

.

[Testiculese]

I have a girlfriend who absolutely detests the idea of having children.

She have a sister? Or can you hook me up if you break up with her?

[xceptional1]

God (pun intended) this pisses me off. No, I didn't read the entire thread. I just read the first few idiotic responses. I'll just say one thing -

There are enough neglected children in the world as is. It has been stastically proven that kids that grow up in 'poor' neighborhoods are more likely to turn to crime. And a poor child hood is interchangeable with abused, neglected, uneducated, and any other word referencing the fact that nobody-★■◆●ing-cares about these kids. What pisses me off is the fact that the same morons that are so pro-life are the same idiots bitching down the line - \"my tax dollars are paying for them to sit in prison and watch TV all day long\".

Bottom line - if you're pro-life. You really can't say ★■◆● about anything regarding the current state of our prison system. Well, of course you can - and present yourself as the dumbass we all knew you already were.

[roid]

skimming through this thread looking at WHO is posting WHAT, what Flabby says seems accurate:

it's all about religion

it's the answer to his own later question \"why does america talk about this so much?\"

it's all about religion

[TIGERassault]

skimming through this thread looking at WHO is posting WHAT, what Flabby says seems accurate:

it's all about religion

it's the answer to his own later question "why does america talk about this so much?"

it's all about religion

Well, of course it is. Without taking religion, there's no real way to define how worthy one life of something is!

That includes you too, Bet.

[Bet51987]

.

[Diedel]

Testi,

[this forum hates long quotes ...]

You are basing your argumentation on one definition of life, while in this context the personal life of the developing child is meant. Therefore your argumentation is invalid in this context.

In regard of child abortion, life always means the processes of biological activity called 'life' as much as the life the conceived child will or could have, would it be granted the chance to grow up.

Whether that life is in the future or not does not play a role. It will eventually have this life, if people let it.

In discussions like these, I always start to look at my own life. Do I want to exist? Definitely! What does the thought of having been aborted mean to me? It's horrible!

In my eyes everybody who says an embryo doesn't have a real life, so you can just waste it, is a cynic of monstrous dimensions.

For me child abortion therefore is murder. Simple. Doesn't matter whether you kill someone who would only be a (fully developed) personality in the future.

Btw, if more developed children are aborted, they show strong reactions towards the process of their abortion.

I cannot say it clearly enough: In my eyes, a person approving of child abortion is as good as a demon from the pit of hell in that regard, and a hater of life in the final consequence.

What is currently going on particularly in the west in this regard simply is an expression of the excessive selfishness of people and the loss of ethical standards due to the loss of faith in just any standard (be it Christian faith or not). It's a result of the moral and ethical relativity we have been indoctrinated with for so long. Its perverted how many people who are for child abortion (and maybe have had one, or made their wife/friend have one) are crazy about the children they have.

Even a person who believes there is no God or higher principle, and we are all just meat machines does have a strong desire to survive, and our society's mechanism to protect personal life and society, while they may be explicable by sociological means, still spawn extremely strong personal feelings about the issue. Human life has to be protected wherever it exists or comes into existance; not where some people or a legislation decide.

Finally, where do people who approve of child abortion draw the line? When does life start to be \"worth living\"? If people take the right to judge that, they are exactly where the Nazis have been, when they were killing children with physical and mental handicaps.

[Jeff250]

We don't have to draw that line, since the issue isn't about whose life is worth living or not. The issue is about what do we want to define to be human life. Most pro-choice advocates don't dissolve the difference between present life and possible future life like you seem to advocate.

But you seem to have a line to draw. You've made quite clear your commitment to creating future life at even high costs. So you're against abortions. But what about contraceptives? When I reflect to myself, the thought of my parents having used a contraceptive and me having never lived is horrible! And what about abstinence? When I reflect to myself, the thought of my parents having abstained and me having never lived is horrible! So where do you draw the line?

[TIGERassault]

Without taking religion, there's no real way to define how worthy one life of something is!

That includes you too, Bet.

Thats the most inaccurate statement I have seen in this entire thread. You conceive or adopt a child out of love not because your religious. Do you think that because I'm not religious I'm not able to define how worthy life is?

Wrong. Because you are religious.

A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body.

[Duper]

you can be a religious golfer, or worker or even gamer.

Whatever \"gets you through\", that's your religion. (not detracking from Tiger's post)

[Bet51987]

.

[Lothar]

Moderator Note: Just another reminder to keep it friendly and civil. No matter how \"idiotic\" or \"evil\" you think people on the other side are, post ideas and reasoned arguments, not insults.

[Duper]

Bettina, the thing is that forcing a 13 year old to carry a baby as a result of rape to term, for you crosses some moral boundry. Generally speaking, morality is associated with a religious foundation of some kind. A true athiest has no morals. If there is no higher power to answer to, all is relative in so much that it benefits the individual. i.e. following laws and regulations allows you to stay out of jail. etc.

You have strong convictions of \"wrong\" and \"right\" in this area, and that's a good thing, even if I/we disagree with you on some or all points. At least you're not apathetic.

[Jeff250]

A true athiest has no morals. If there is no higher power to answer to, all is relative in so much that it benefits the individual. i.e. following laws and regulations allows you to stay out of jail. etc.

Gah.

To paraphrase Socrates 399 B.C., "Do (1) the gods love what is good, or (2) is the good what the gods love?"

If you choose 1, the good is outside of the gods, and they simply recognize the good when they see it. This is OK unless you're trying to justify a religious statement like "There is no morality without the gods."

If you choose 2 like a true theist, then something is good just because the gods love it. Consequences of this are that if the gods love murder, then murder is good. So in other words, the good hinges on the arbitrary fascination of the gods. Thus, the good is what you might call "relative."

This dichotomy captures statements like, "God is good," too, since you'd still have to clarify what exactly you mean by this, and you'll ultimately fall into one of the two traps, or perhaps a third--vicious circularity.

So, unless you can resolve this dilemma, I submit to you that a true theist has no morals. All morals are relative insofar as they are the arbitrary fascination of the gods.

The truth is is that if the good exists, then it's something far more complicated and far more intimate with the human life than what can be resolved by what some gods think in some other dimension.

[Jeff250]

And, you know, to emphasize my point, just saying something is authoritative doesn't make it the case, especially when the suit doesn't fit, and Christians have been getting away with this for far too long. If God came down from the heavens and declared an absolute frame of reference, would that really resolve the issue of spacetime relativity? Or what if God declared a center of the universe. Would that mean that we would have absolute position in space? I think not. Why would God declaring an absolute ethical system be any different?

I don't want to see Christians throwing around categorical statements like, \"Only religion can explain morality,\" or \"True atheists don't believe in morals,\" on the DBB any more, unless they are prepared to at least answer some of the problems in modern ethical inquiry. Otherwise, it's just plain irresponsible.