We are all guilty

[Will Robinson]

parents have the right to teach the children their first 16 or more years.... therefore the parents opinion both trumps and mirrors the potential opinion of the fetus....

You could make the same argument for why a mother should be able to kill her child at any time during those first 16 years of its life, or why a father should be able to have sex with his child at any time during those first 16 years -- the parents opinion both trumps and mirrors the potential opinion of their 3 year old.

But it turns out, neglect and abuse are situations where it's broadly considered appropriate for outsiders to interfere.

No, because the State has determined that would be murder.
Under the scenario where you were exploring the proposal that a mother has the most vested interest therefore she decides and you took it a step further to say the fetus has even more vested interest therefore the fetus should be 'allowed to decide', in that scenario the fetus can't be the victim of murder under the law. You can't neglect or abuse, or apparently even kill a fetus you can only have it surgically removed. Once it is born however it earns citizenship/humanity under the law so a mother can't 'abort' a 16 year old but she can kill it.

I was just trying to follow your lead and take the logic/premise a step beyond where you did to turn it back on you. I doubt your reasons for being anti-abortion hinge on something so base as who has the most interest decides, you were just playing out someone else's reasoning so I went for a little philosophical Hot-Potato. Not too sure my effort is worthy of discussion at this point, more like a sitting around with friends spitting out ideas kind of thing.

My belief, no scratch that, I have no belief on abortion, only conflict.
My feelings on abortion are such a mix I don't know what I'd do if it was left to me to be the final word for the nation. That's why I think if congress won't specify when life begins for the purpose of deciding the issue (neither party wants to give up that campaign tool) then it should be up to the States to decide if they want to let a procedure like that take place in their jurisdiction, they could come up with some kind of safety regulation control to prohibit it like 'human life may be unnecessarily lost due to the procedure so it isn't allowed...' and people from those states can travel to liberal land for their abortions...
Seems like if they can make me wear a motorcycle helmet or wear a seatbelt, stop eating trans fat or not smoke then they could take issue with abortion.

[Jeff250]

When does it gain a soul, oh that’s right…you don’t believe in the soul.

I think that determining when a fetus receives an invisible soul is much harder than any of the previous questions asked and much further removed from anything that should actually be guiding our decisions.

It then becomes an arbitrary decision, with your parameters being just as valid/invalid as anybody elses, and seems to be asked for the sole purpose of justifying abortion.

I don't know why we should become stark relativists when asked questions like, "What is a person?" when we already have such strong command of equally fuzzy questions like, "What is good?"

We're legally allowed to destroy most life. It's life that has qualities that remind us of ourselves that we give legal rights to, and, of course, to the people who are ourselves.

That's the problem with trying to use "personhood" rather than biological life as the basis. It's far too subjective and removed from any good definition. I can say "at conception", someone else can say "at first brain impulse" or "at first heartbeat", others might say "at birth" (or later, depending on their concept of personhood).

Most humans don't stop becoming people until they're adults. Many never really get there.

But, of course, this doesn't mean that we can kill our children. But yet we do give fewer legal rights to them.

We wouldn't put this much fuss into deciding whether someone were bald. Maybe if we posed this question, when does someone become bald, to a bunch of people, we would see them take similar positions. Some would assert that baldness is when you've lost 50% of your hair. Others 25%. Maybe someone sophisticated would say "Norwood 6." Still others, thinking that all of those seem too arbitrary, would suggest that you become bald when you lose your first hair to genetic hair loss. But I think that all of these answers are insufficient. You start becoming a "little" bald when you lose your first hair until you're "somewhat" bald and some become "very" bald. Likewise, I think it's best to think of a fetus as something that's slowing becoming more and more a person, slowly becoming something that we owe increasing legal status.

Personhood isn't a binary thing, it's not just on or off. That's why arbitrary points like "heartbeat" or "conception" seem so silly. It's not as though we should be consumed in worry by off-by-one errors, like what if we say that abortion is illegal after 30 days but it turns out that the "right" answer was 29! So many of the assumptions of that kind of question are bogus.

I just think that we should be reasonable about this. Let's ask ourselves what kinds of things do we find valuable in life. And then let's make laws to protect it. I just don't see anyone making that kind of analysis. Instead we get hung up on things like "souls" and all kinds of various "moments," like the moment of conception or the moment the fetus becomes alive or the moment the fetus becomes a person. Gah.

[Spidey]

I have to disagree, you can’t be half a person…you are a person or you are not. I know you don’t like definitions…so I won’t bother.

A fertilized egg contains all of the “essence” of a person, it just doesn’t have a body yet. In your world, a “thing” born with birth defects could be denied the right to live, because it wasn’t a “person”.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects of this debate…that being how words are used to distort reality…

Medical Procedure…implies pregnancy is an illness that can be cured.
Sperm Donor…demotes the male to some minor peripheral actor.
Potential Human Being…denies the humanity of the developing child.

[Heretic]

Most humans don't stop becoming people until they're adults. Many never really get there.

people
Definition
NOUN
1.
nation: a nation, community, ethnic group, or nationality
"a proud people"
PLURAL NOUN
1.
human beings collectively: human beings considered collectively or in general
"People tend not to mind if you ask them for help."
2.
subordinates: persons who are under the authority or leadership of somebody or something, e.g. employees, subjects, or followers
"I'll get one of my people to phone them."
3.
ordinary men and women: the general population, as distinct from the government or higher social classes
"the will of the people"
4.
political unit: a group of persons comprising a political unit, electorate, or group
5.
family members: the members of somebody's family, especially somebody's close family ( informal )
"My people were farmers."

I see plenty of totally stupid things coming out here from highly educated people that make me think our education system is a total shame. It seems the more educated the person the more they lose their conscience. So they can rationalize the killing of the defenseless. Gah seriously how can a people not make it to be people. Ever heard the saying "People are People no matter how small"

“Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

The division of cells that create a fetus is highly organized.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce. Meaning the cells divide, then divide again, etc.

Funny how doctors take an oath that includes this

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece

Yet highly educated people still rationalize the killing spree of humans that are defenseless. I say shame on each and every one of you heartless monsters who believe you can rationalize this heinous act of murder.

[Lothar]

parents have the right to teach the children their first 16 or more years.... therefore the parents opinion both trumps and mirrors the potential opinion of the fetus....

You could make the same argument for why a mother should be able to kill her child at any time during those first 16 years of its life, or why a father should be able to have sex with his child at any time during those first 16 years -- the parents opinion both trumps and mirrors the potential opinion of their 3 year old.

But it turns out, neglect and abuse are situations where it's broadly considered appropriate for outsiders to interfere.

No, because the State has determined that would be murder.
Under the scenario where you were exploring the proposal that a mother has the most vested interest therefore she decides and you took it a step further to say the fetus has even more vested interest therefore the fetus should be 'allowed to decide', in that scenario the fetus can't be the victim of murder under the law.

Using the current law as an argument for the correctness of the current law isn't really helpful.

We already acknowledge that parents have SOME, but not TOTAL, control over what happens to their underage children, and that the state/society can intervene for the child's protection in some circumstances. So the only worthwhile question is, at what stage of development does it become appropriate to begin to intervene on behalf of the offspring? We all know what the law says, but the subject of (one thread of) this discussion is whether the law is right.

[Jeff250]

I have to disagree, you can’t be half a person…you are a person or you are not. I know you don’t like definitions…so I won’t bother.

people
Definition

I used the term "person" because it's the closest word I can think of to describe what I'm talking about, but, if you're hung up on some of the peculiarities of that word, then we can call the set of ethically valuable qualities in human life "Mickey Mouse" and describe our legal obligation with respect to them. Clearly, living things can have different degrees of "Mickey Mouse," as we give kids, who are less "Mickey Mouse," fewer legal rights than adults. Most life we legally think don't have enough "Mickey Mouse" to warrant any legal rights at all, but some non-human animals we think are enough "Mickey Mouse" to warrant a few rights.

A fertilized egg contains all of the “essence” of a person, it just doesn’t have a body yet. In your world, a “thing” born with birth defects could be denied the right to live, because it wasn’t a “person”.

Well, they do have a lot of things that make them people-like. For instance, they're genetically humans, and I think that that in itself goes a long ways. But, in all fairness, they don't have emotion or consciousness of thought either, and those are part of what makes a person too. I mean, it's not unfair to point that out.

[Spidey]

No it’s not unfair, and a good point, so to be fair I’m going to ask you to define what you mean by “person” in this context.

Please define “person”.

[Tunnelcat]

Lothar, your wife had it easy

No she didn't.

We had to induce labor a month early over concerns her pre-eclampsia might turn into full blown eclampsia and put her into a coma or worse. The process started at about 5 PM on Dec 23; our son was born at 2:45 AM on Dec 25. That's 34 hours of labor. During the most painful phase, the anesthesiologist wasn't available because there were five C-sections going on just beforehand. Once she finally got her epidural, it didn't catch the full muscle.

It wasn't easy compared to most labor; it was brutal. Just not as brutal as some of our hardest martial arts practices. (When she said the thing about "women are whiners", she specifically mentioned having been in more pain at certain kendo practices.) Uterine contractions can be remarkably painful, but women like to act like it's the worst pain ever, when the reality is a lot of people have experienced just as much pain from other sources.

I apologize to you and your wife Lothar. I had no idea of what she went through during her pregnancy and labor. If she still thinks that woman are "whiners" after all that, she's a far stronger woman than most of us. I'm glad for the both of you.

I don't feel like that is flippant at all. To even suggest that an abortion is justified on the basis of pain is ridiculous. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of it. After considering for awhile also I can't really justify thinking that a woman can have complete control over the birth of a child. I do believe the father has grounds to prevent his child from being aborted. It's all just an ugly situation that should never happen, but abortion just seems barbaric to me. I'll have to stick to my original stance and just say you should have to suffer the consequences of ALL your actions. Not just when you steal, kill, lie or anything else that is considered bad behavior. Why should women get a pass at getting knocked up, but then every other bad act has to suffer punishment? What if the woman decides to carry the baby to term and smokes crack and shoots heroin? It's her body after all. Why can't I smoke weed after a hard day of work? It's my body after all. No, that argument only seems to work when your talking about abortion. Otherwise it's business as usual which is what makes me wonder why our government is so easy to side with that argument on abortion, but are prohibitive concerning all other things that should be "up to the individual". I hate inconsistency because it smells of lies and manipulation

Yes, I agree with you that abortion is "barbaric" and I personally wouldn't have it done unless I were a rape or incest victim. And I also agree that the father should have a say in what happens to an unborn child, (EXCEPT when he's the rapist or sex offender) he contributed half his genes after all, so I'm not as "barbaric" as you think I am.

But how about those 'gray areas' that crop up occasionally, like when the mother is single and the father has abandoned her (usually BECAUSE of the baby) and he is no longer around? Does she still have the right to have complete control over what happens to her body, or does the state and/or church have the final say since there is no father around? The issue here in my mind is self-control and self-determination over our bodies, NOT the act of abortion itself. It's the idea that someone ELSE (other than the father) can tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies that detests me.

And when a woman gets "knocked up", as you so eloquently put it, who's fault is that if the woman happens to be drugged or drunk at the time of the sex and she never intended to get pregnant in the first place? If it were easier during sex to keep conception from even happening in the first place, there wouldn't be the need for abortion. But sometimes birth control efforts fail and it always falls on the woman to deal with the situation because SHE is now responsible for carrying it to term and raising it. Even the 'morning after pill' is an anathema to anti-abortionists, despite the fact that the 'fetus' is no more than a few undifferentiated dividing cells.

And since you brought it up and think abortion should be outlawed, why not go further to protect the fetus? Should there be laws in place to protect a fetus during pregnancy from the mother's abuse of her body when she indulges in drugs, alcohol or smoking? It's well known that these substances can cause either birth defects or other health problems down the line for the fetus/child that's been exposed to those chemicals while in the womb.

[CUDA]

your 3 issues

But how about those 'gray areas' that crop up occasionally, like when the mother is single and the father has abandoned her (usually BECAUSE of the baby) and he is no longer around?

life isnt fair and it's a sad event ideed if a man dumps a woman because she became pregnant. makes him a lower than a coward in my book. but assuming that when she got pregnant while they were together she wanted the child. but now that they arent together she chooses to kill it? poor choice. Track the bum down for child support. anyway is geting dumped a Viable reason to take a life?

And when a woman gets \"knocked up\", as you so eloquently put it, who's fault is that if the woman happens to be drugged or drunk at the time of the sex and she never intended to get pregnant in the first place?

if she was drugged thats rape cut the bastards nuts off and throw him in jail. if she was drunk too bad, she made the choice to drink, she made the choice to have sex. be an adult and deal with the concequences of those choices.

And since you brought it up and think abortion should be outlawed, why not go further to protect the fetus? Should there be laws in place to protect a fetus during pregnancy from the mother's abuse of her body when she indulges in drugs, alcohol

there are laws in place. its called fetal alchohol syndrome. any baby born with it and the mother goes to jail and the child goes to the CSD, unfortunatelly sometimes its too late for the baby. but unless you wish to random drug test the entire populace there is virtually no way to prevent it.

[Will Robinson]

Why can you be arrested for the fetal alcohol scenario but you can't be arrested for chopping the fetus up and disposing of the remains?
Seems to me there is a court challenge in the making right there, either they have to stop chopping up fetus or stop arresting mothers for delivering drugged babies.

[Heretic]

random drug test the entire populace there is virtually no way to prevent it.

I think they do already test Babies at birth for drugs.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_babies_te ... s_at_birth

They do for sure test you if you are getting welfare in Missouri and have a baby.

[flip]

This whole debate sucks because it will always come down to ones position. It will never be resolved. Let's don't even bring religion into it because if someone was truly religious they wouldn't have got into this position in the first place. Even that is a weak argument because even the truly religious screw up and get into these positions. I break it down like this I guess. I'm for a free democracy. I have no wish to force my beliefs on others or for the government to do the same either. It would become all encompassing and no line would ever be drawn.

I could also take a hardline stance, but like someone else pointed out, this is not an ideal world. So, I see it like this, religious beliefs aside. I mean anyone that takes a hardline religious stance here, it comes down to fornication which should have never been done in the first place. Everything after is just consequences of that. This is not an ideal world, and any world that begins to force it's beliefs on others is even less ideal.

I think then, considering people are going to have sex outside of marriage anyways(I did), the most logical thing I can think of is to take preventative measures. Even the morning after pill is just that, just incase I might have gotten pregnant last night, let me take this pill. There is no knowledge of a pregnancy.

I think it comes down to personal beliefs then. I myself had this very experience. My ex got pregnant and we were never married. In fact she was a hot ass nutcase. Not marriage material, but one time that we fooled around ,she found out later that she got pregnant. Had we used contraceptives, or the next morning said \"Oh crap\" and taken a morning after pill, then the process would have been halted immediately. What in reality happened is, after a period of time she \"realized\" she was pregnant. That takes time and growth of the fetus to happen. To me then it was a done deal. No going back from that point because the process had started and all due to lack of good sense and self control. In my mind to destroy then would have been murder. So, I guess I'm for preventing in the first place, but if you screw up, then take responsibility for your actions. I also see the end of that decision. Her name is brittany. She is a very happy and stubborn 16 year old that had every right to live and in all my short 40 years, I've never seen another just like her.

[Jeff250]

No it’s not unfair, and a good point, so to be fair I’m going to ask you to define what you mean by “person” in this context.

Please define “person”.

In general, I'm using it as the set of qualities that we find ethically valuable in human life, i.e., when a human dies, the things that we've lost that compel us to think that murder is wrong.

But I think what you're really asking for is for me to flesh out what these qualities might be. I think that it's, to some extent, open for debate, but a partial enumeration might be {human DNA, senses, emotion, movement, self-awareness, intelligence, language, consciousness, memory, friends, ...}. The human DNA one seems a bit species-ist, but maybe it would be better stated as person-able DNA. It's worth noting that most of these qualities in themselves aren't binary and living things can have them to various extents.

Although born infants possess a surprising number of these qualities, they don't have them all. For instance, they aren't capable of language in any meaningful sense, and they aren't self-aware (or they at least fail the mirror test*). I don't think that humans fully develop some of these qualities like consciousness or intelligence until adulthood. But, legally, we say that kids have fewer rights until they reach a certain age when you get the rest (or really, ages in most countries). Dogs are capable of the five senses, they can display emotion, they can move around, they have remarkable memory, they can make friends, but they aren't really capable of language, they aren't self-aware or conscious, and, despite being highly trainable, they aren't, in general, very bright. Still, we think that that's enough for dogs to have some legal rights too. Chimpanzees additionally bring self-awareness and intelligence to the table, and probably, to some extent, consciousness. I'd argue not so much language, since, although we can train them to use sign language, it's not something that they use on their own, even when amongst fellow sign-language-speaking chimps. As far as I know, in the U.S., chimps don't have any additional legal rights over dogs, but it's enough that I'm torn on issues like whether we should perform drug-testing on them. We probably shouldn't, but it's easy to look the other way when we get a life-saving medication out of it.

* The Wikipedia article has an amusing video demonstrating the failure of dogs to pass the mirror test, something that most dog owners should be familiar with.

[flip]

And as always there are exceptions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSC1GhGdsgg

[Spidey]

Thank you, for answering.

Yea…I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, And I just want to go on record as disagreeing with most of what you are saying in your 3rd paragraph. (arguing those points will take this thread too far off topic)

I think the right to live is the only “right” that has any relevance in this issue, not any “legal” rights. You either have it or you don’t. Trying to decide right to life on some sliding scale, is just something I can’t deal with.

If a decision is made to take a life, based on some sort of need, then so be it. I’m not going to quantify the right to life to justify it, the reason to do so…must justify it.

[Will Robinson]

...
If a decision is made to take a life, based on some sort of need, then so be it. ..

That's what I don't get. Is the working Supreme Court interpretation of the alleged, all powerful and ever slippery 'right to privacy' giving woman the right to take a life, or to have a medical procedure to remove potential life?!? I don't think many politicians or even the judges who voted in favor of that ruling will answer that question!

You would think the legislators would demand of themselves to establish the official benchmark for where life begins so they could avoid passing a legalized murder law. They take years and spend hundreds of thousands to decide how much salt is allowed to be served in a school lunchroom but they don't even want to know if they are killing babies with legalized abortion!

You can go to numerous places in america on a Saturday night at midnight and if you step across an imaginary line and drink a beer you are breaking the law..step back across the line and you are safe....you live on one side of the line then you have to go to the other school...have to vote in the other polling place...have to pay more tax...etc.etc.
We have satellites in orbit and all sorts of high tech gear on the ground to identify where those imaginary lines are and we have to be careful of what we do on each side of those lines. Arbitrarily established boundaries set up solely to make governing easier. Judges and police and politicians are very fond of those arbitrary lines they use to make their laws manageable but take a cop/judge/politician into an abortion clinic and show him a pregnant mother having a baby cut out of the womb and they will say 'Well, it's legal' but if you ask Yea, but is it alive?!? Is it murder?!? they suddenly don't even have an opinion let alone a law to support one if they dared share it!!

I realize if the Fed did declare life begins at birth that wouldn't satisfy the anti-abortion side but it seems to me if the Fed won't decide when life begins and a State declares they won't allow abortion on the grounds that it is murder then the Fed would have to pass a law defining when life begins or else they have no grounds to interfere with the State. The whole Roe Vs. Wade ruling is a really lazy cowardly 'solution'.

[Spidey]

The “right to privacy” doesn’t justify or give the right to take life…it says…it’s none of your business.

[Behemoth]

The courts are just as wrong and guilty as those who abuse their right's to commit the crimes they're allowed to do by law.

I also think it's sad that people can't seem to distinguish the difference between \"right\" and \"wrong\" but rathher think if it's legal that theres nothing wrong with doing something.

Example, a cop pulls someone over and harasses them, which by law they are allowed to do and get away with (it's done quite frequently actually) but it's not within your legal \"rights\" to protect yourself.

Is THAT right? no.
and that's just one thing but you understand what i'm getting at.

[Will Robinson]

...

I also think it's sad that people can't seem to distinguish the difference between "right" and "wrong" but rathher think if it's legal that theres nothing wrong with doing something. ....

I understand what you are saying but don't you find it adds insult to injury, regardless of where you stand on abortion, that the government will protect a procedure that may be taking a life, they will stop the States from outlawing it but they won't even take a consistant stand on when a fetus becomes a life! A junkie drugs the fetus in the womb and it is harming another life, the same junkie can chop the fetus' head open and pull it out in pieces and it is protected by some alleged right to privacy!!

That is medieval type law not worthy of 21st century america! might as well have some voodoo priestess toss some chicken bones in a circle of pig urine and decide our fate!

[Krom]

might as well have some voodoo priestess toss some chicken bones in a circle of pig urine and decide our fate!

Actually that would probably be a significant improvement over leaving it up to our current lawmakers.