Originally Posted by Katie '85

The issue at stake is whether the distinct body of the fetus (say what you will, there is a distinction between the fetus's body and the mother's) is a human person. If the fetus is a human life, as pro-lifers assert, then it is entitled to protection. If abortion is the deliberate extermination of innocent human life it cannot be a private decision anymore than rape or murder can be the private decision of the assailant. If you presented me with persuasive and logical evidence showing that a fetus is not a human life, then I would have no problem agreeing with you.

First a few comments. An unwanted fetus is a parasite for the simple reason that it lives off of its mother (host) and returns nothing. A wanted fetus is not a parasite, but rather a symbiote. It too lives off of the mother, but it returns something. An infant is always a symbiote. It lives off its parents, but returns an emotional bond. If such a bond does not exist (the infant is not wanted) the child may be adopted by another couple, for which the relationship will be symbiotic.

So a fetus is not exactly the same as infant, the term parasite can apply in a logical and consistent fashion.

However you are right that the crux of the issue has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is a parasite. Does the host have the right to expel a parasite if it is human? After all we have laws that require parents to support their children. As a society we support the aged and infirm even though they may well function as societal parasites. We prosecute those who would violate their rights as human beings. So an excellent case can be made that if the fetus is a human being then it is entitled to the protection of the state and abortion should be illegal.

To look into the status of fetuses, a number of thought experiments are useful. The first is for all practical terms there is hardly any essential difference between a fetus just minutes before birth and an infant just after birth. The proscription on late-term abortions reflects this observation. At some point a fetus become so baby-like (including being able to live as a baby if born prematurely) that is hard to see how it inherently is different from a baby as far as its rights are concerned.

But there is the other end. If fertilized eggs (embryos) are people, then in vitro fertilization procedures involve mass murder on a routine basis. In fertility clinics millions of embryos are imprisoned within freezers and considered the property of their parents. Specifically if the parents don't wish to have any more children these embryos (people) are simply killed. Should all couples who have undergone in vitro fertilization be charged with murder?

If not, why? How can treating embryos as livestock whose lives may be sacrificed at the whim of their owners be justified if these embryos are human beings? The consensus amongst most Americans is that couples undergoing in vitro fertilization are not mass murderers. Embryos simply are not exactly equivalent to babies or children in terms of humanness.

A morning after pill that blocks attachment of an embryo, resulting in it being flushed out of the body to die, is exactly equivalent to the introduction of five embryos to hopefully produce one baby during in vitro fertilization. The status of the embryos that don't attach is the same as those in the freezers at fertility clinics.

At some point in its development the embryo becomes sufficiently baby-like to no longer be considered as equivalent to the embryos in the freezer and to instead to be more like a newborn infant. And at that point, the fetus would become human. Where that line would be drawn will be different for different people. But it seems clear that for the population as a whole, on average, it is well after conception, but well before birth.

There exist logically-consistent extremists on both ends. Those who believe they must support the right to abort an 8 month fetus in order to preserve choice, and those who are prepared to condemn infertile couples whom have undergone in vitro fertilization as murderers in order to be consistent with their belief that life begins at conception.

On the other hand, many people are not logically consistent about the issue.

Mike: Great post.

You raise the same issue that trobled the Court in Roe v. Wade. Their solution of three trimesters, each with its own rules, was at once unsatifactory and just about as good a job as reality permitted at the time. I think you even identified the same three groups: permissive (1st trimester), dubious (2nd) and limited to cases involving the life and health of the mother (3rd).

If someone has a better solution, I'd like to hear it.

Yawn. The abortion debate is a waste of time. If you think abortion is wrong then don't have an abortion.
Personally I believe that Pro-Life activists have a very skewed vision of what exactly "life" is anyway. They aren't really "pro-life" so much as they are "pro-birth."
They prefer the child be birthed, even if it was to die soon after.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Yawn. The abortion debate is a waste of time. If you think abortion is wrong then don't have an abortion.

The subtext implied in your statement is as follows:

If you think abortion is wrong then don't have an abortion (but don't interfere with my right to have one).

We can substite other activities:

If you think lying is wrong then don't lie (but don't interfere with my right to lie).

If you think stealing is wrong then don't steal (but don't interfere with my right to steal).

If you think murder is wrong then don't murder (but don't interfere with my right to murder).

The issue comes to whether you think abortion (or lying or stealing or murder) is so morally wrong that people should be discouraged or even prevented from doing it. In this case it is not enough to just refraining from doing it yourself.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Yawn. The abortion debate is a waste of time. If you think abortion is wrong then don't have an abortion.

The subtext implied in your statement is as follows:

If you think abortion is wrong then don't have an abortion (but don't interfere with my right to have one).

We can substite other activities:

If you think lying is wrong then don't lie (but don't interfere with my right to lie).

If you think stealing is wrong then don't steal (but don't interfere with my right to steal).

If you think murder is wrong then don't murder (but don't interfere with my right to murder).

The issue comes to whether you think abortion (or lying or stealing or murder) is so morally wrong that people should be discouraged or even prevented from doing it. In this case it is not enough to just refraining from doing it yourself.

All of these first trimester abortions (which are as morally reprehensible to pro life teenagers and their clerics as third trimester) have a negligible effect on citizens of our society.
Truth be told, they are imagined horrors, for few pro lifers have had abortions, so they can only "imagine" how terrible they are. It has no discernable impact upon them - which is why they should be left out of the equation in the deciding its legality.
Murder, stealing - these have discernable negitive effects on other citizens. You can't assign rights to unborn babies however, especially when they may be naturally aborted by the mothers body themselves!
The pro lifers just don't want to recognize that there is a cesspool of humanity that you cannot legislate away. People will from time to time need abortions. But the pro-birthers would rather both of these people die in birth, rather than save one life and scrap the other, less developed one.

As for lying, lies make the world go 'round.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Yawn. The abortion debate is a waste of time.

I agree. We should forgo something that is such yawn at the Federal level. Abortion Rights is so sleep-making--wake up and abandon them. It's time euthanize a woman's right to kill.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

You can't assign rights to unborn babies however, especially when they may be naturally aborted by the mothers body themselves!

People suffer untimely natural deaths all the time. How does this affect their rights? Of course you can assign rights to unborn babies, just as we can assign rights to animals if we so choose (and some people want to do just that).

The question is not whether rights can be assigned to fetuses, but should they be? Prolife folks wish to assign greater rights to the fetus, although often this impulse ends at birth. Obviously extending fetus rights puts the burden solely on the mother. In contrast, the burden of infant or child rights no longer falls solely on the mother, but can fall on others too.

It is easy to legislate rights whose costs will never be bourne by oneself.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

You can't assign rights to unborn babies however, especially when they may be naturally aborted by the mothers body themselves!

People suffer untimely natural deaths all the time. How does this affect their rights? Of course you can assign rights to unborn babies, just as we can assign rights to animals if we so choose (and some people want to do just that).

The question is not whether rights can be assigned to fetuses, but should they be? Prolife folks wish to assign greater rights to the fetus, although often this impulse ends at birth. Obviously extending fetus rights puts the burden solely on the mother. In contrast, the burden of infant or child rights no longer falls solely on the mother, but can fall on others too.

It is easy to legislate rights whose costs will never be bourne by oneself.

Exactly - they want you to have the baby, no matter what, and support it, no matter what. Since none of this is the male's responsibility- it amounts to society pushing all of this responsibility on the female, no matter how young.
I sat in an abortion clinic, and you know what I saw? A 12 year old girl showing the secretary a middle school yearbook photo because she had no legitimate ID. But in pro-life world - she has the baby at 12, and, with no state assistance, cloths, feeds, educates it - even while she cannot even do the same things for herself.
I guess she has a warm, well-educated, strong family to help her with the child, they're set. But if she's the child of single mom - they're fucked.
Of course unless she is willing to carry the baby for 12 months, against her will, and at the moment of birth, hand it over to the state, and entrust its life to the state, who supposedly can do a better job. (yeah, right)
This is my problem with rightist thinking. It's always an ultimatum based upon an ideological value.
Killing fetii is wrong, hence abortion should be illegal. Saddam was thumbing his nose at the world, therefore he should be removed.
They never seem to anticipate what will happen after they pass these laws.

Exactly - they want you to have the baby, no matter what, and support it, no matter what. Since none of this is the male's responsibility- it amounts to society pushing all of this responsibility on the female, no matter how young.
I sat in an abortion clinic, and you know what I saw? A 12 year old girl showing the secretary a middle school yearbook photo because she had no legitimate ID. But in pro-life world - she has the baby at 12, and, with no state assistance, cloths, feeds, educates it - even while she cannot even do the same things for herself.

Why should the unborn child suffer death just because the rest of society doesn't want to pay?

So, by your definition, if I have an elderly relative and no one wants to take care of them, I should just be able to shoot that relative? Its the same thing, dont you dare tell me its not.

The unborn child is a human person at the moment of conception. Everyone knows that. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda and
is lying to themselves as well as others.

I find it really interesting that these same liberals who whine about the trreatment of animals and terrorists at Guantanamo seem to have no regard whatsoever for the unborn human life. Sounds like hypocracy to me.

Originally Posted by takascar2

I find it really interesting that these same liberals who whine about the trreatment of animals and terrorists at Guantanamo seem to have no regard whatsoever for the unborn human life. Sounds like hypocracy to me.

I find it interesting that this same misinformation about "liberals" continues to be spread. Using phrases like "no regard whatsoever for the unborn human life" is misleading. "Liberals" are just as interested in seeing healthy babies born as anyone else.

I am pro-choice, but I am much more concerned about actually preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Originally Posted by takascar2

I find it really interesting that these same liberals who whine about the trreatment of animals and terrorists at Guantanamo seem to have no regard whatsoever for the unborn human life. Sounds like hypocracy to me.

This is just another case of classic Boomer "do as I say, not as I did."
The President rallies pro-lifers, but Drudge reported he paid for his girlfriend to get an abortion 33 years ago. He supports stiff sentences on drug related crime, but used illegal substances himself.

Now that the Boomers are of non-child rearing age, it has occured to them that others should not have the same license that they had as youth.
That is hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by takascar2

The unborn child is a human person at the moment of conception. Everyone knows that. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda and
is lying to themselves as well as others.

How convenient.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Why should the unborn child suffer death just because the rest of society doesn't want to pay?

Society will pay, one way or the other. If you sentence that 12 year old girl to early motherhood society will pay in Medicaid, in food stamps, and if all of the state supported efforts fail - in juvenile halls, foster care placements, and possible incarceration.
Just because cheapskates like yourself wish the weakest of society "good luck" and that's it, doesn't mean you won't pay one way or the other.
Like it or not, we are in this for good, together.
Whether you want to have a population policy that makes sense, or one that doesn't is up to you and your extremist fantasies.
Maybe we'll just have to reach a population boiling point before we have mass euthaniasia (like they do in China).
Again - it's up to what you would like to see. Apparently you prefer that every child be birthed, regardless of the consequences.
The teenager with AIDS must birth her child before it can die, or before she can die, so she can leave the child to become another state charge that you will pay for, Warbucks.
If that's your opinion, fine - but you've been lucky more rational people have been in the power to make the right decisions.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by takascar2

Why should the unborn child suffer death just because the rest of society doesn't want to pay?

Society will pay, one way or the other. If you sentence that 12 year old girl to early motherhood society will pay in Medicaid, in food stamps, and if all of the state supported efforts fail - in juvenile halls, foster care placements, and possible incarceration.
Just because cheapskates like yourself wish the weakest of society "good luck" and that's it, doesn't mean you won't pay one way or the other.
Like it or not, we are in this for good, together.
Whether you want to have a population policy that makes sense, or one that doesn't is up to you and your extremist fantasies.
Maybe we'll just have to reach a population boiling point before we have mass euthaniasia (like they do in China).
Again - it's up to what you would like to see. Apparently you prefer that every child be birthed, regardless of the consequences.
The teenager with AIDS must birth her child before it can die, or before she can die, so she can leave the child to become another state charge that you will pay for, Warbucks.
If that's your opinion, fine - but you've been lucky more rational people have been in the power to make the right decisions.

So why cant we just gas old people in the nursing homes? Same thing - why should we pay for them??? There is NO DIFFERENCE in those two things. Again I say - IT IS NOT THE CHILD'S CHOICE HOW IT CAME TO BE SO WHY PUNISH THE CHILD?

Originally Posted by takascar2

So why cant we just gas old people in the nursing homes? Same thing - why should we pay for them??? There is NO DIFFERENCE in those two things. Again I say - IT IS NOT THE CHILD'S CHOICE HOW IT CAME TO BE SO WHY PUNISH THE CHILD?

Why burden cheapskates like yourself with another public charge?
As for gassing people in their homes, I do not believe that a clump of cells is a "human being." It's just not. A clump of cells in a woman's uterus do not have any more rights than a mole on her face that she wants removed.
It's not even recognizably separate from her at all.

Human? Certainly. Human Being? Give me a break

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by takascar2

So why cant we just gas old people in the nursing homes? Same thing - why should we pay for them??? There is NO DIFFERENCE in those two things. Again I say - IT IS NOT THE CHILD'S CHOICE HOW IT CAME TO BE SO WHY PUNISH THE CHILD?

Why burden cheapskates like yourself with another public charge?
As for gassing people in their homes, I do not believe that a clump of cells is a "human being." It's just not. A clump of cells in a woman's uterus do not have any more rights than a mole on her face that she wants removed.
It's not even recognizably separate from her at all.
Human? Certainly. Human Being? Give me a break

Yes it is recognizable - it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother, now does it? Thats a separate PERSON.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yes it is recognizable - it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother, now does it? Thats a separate PERSON.

Sure it is.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yes it is recognizable - it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother, now does it? Thats a separate PERSON.

So does a cell of her own, infected with the flu virus. Your standard of 'separate-personhood' is going to need to be more rigorous than: Has unique DNA.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by takascar2

Why should the unborn child suffer death just because the rest of society doesn't want to pay?

Society will pay, one way or the other. If you sentence that 12 year old girl to early motherhood society will pay in Medicaid, in food stamps, and if all of the state supported efforts fail - in juvenile halls, foster care placements, and possible incarceration.
Just because cheapskates like yourself wish the weakest of society "good luck" and that's it, doesn't mean you won't pay one way or the other.
Like it or not, we are in this for good, together.
Whether you want to have a population policy that makes sense, or one that doesn't is up to you and your extremist fantasies.
Maybe we'll just have to reach a population boiling point before we have mass euthaniasia (like they do in China).
Again - it's up to what you would like to see. Apparently you prefer that every child be birthed, regardless of the consequences.
The teenager with AIDS must birth her child before it can die, or before she can die, so she can leave the child to become another state charge that you will pay for, Warbucks.
If that's your opinion, fine - but you've been lucky more rational people have been in the power to make the right decisions.

If we closed our borders to illegals and ended a woman's right to kill would that be a population policy that made sense? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yes it is recognizable - it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother, now does it? Thats a separate PERSON.

So does a cell of her own, infected with the flu virus. Your standard of 'separate-personhood' is going to need to be more rigorous than: Has unique DNA.

A cell with a virus is not a human being, an unborn fetus is. There is a difference, stop with the rediculous comparisions.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yes it is recognizable - it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother, now does it? Thats a separate PERSON.

So does a cell of her own, infected with the flu virus. Your standard of 'separate-personhood' is going to need to be more rigorous than: Has unique DNA.

A cell with a virus is not a human being, an unborn fetus is. There is a difference, stop with the rediculous comparisions.

It's not a human being. It certainly is human - but with an underdeveloped nervous system it cannot even feel pain nor sense its existence.
It's not a person.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

If we closed our borders to illegals and ended a woman's right to kill would that be a population policy that made sense? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Depends. If we are meeting our goals with the population we have - then abortion remains legal. If we have too many people - then it should obviously remain legal. If we have too few people - then I would cut down access.
If we institute a socialist paradise then it should be a crime to kill a future tax payer.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Why should the unborn child suffer death just because the rest of society doesn't want to pay?

That depends. Suppose the pregnancy resulted from a brutal gang-rape? In that case, to say the child's life is more important that the woman's is like saying we don't have the right to kill soldiers invading our shores in a war. To say we "shouldn't have to pay" for such abortions, then, is akin to saying "we shouldn't have a defense budget".

The unborn child is a human person at the moment of conception. Everyone knows that. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda and
is lying to themselves as well as others.

I agree. The agenda, of course, is to keep everyone fucking with minimal consequences so we don't have to go back to the '50s .

However, the real question isn't whether abortion is the killing of a human life (which it is), but rather whether it's murder one or justifiable homicide. It depends.

I find it really interesting that these same liberals who whine about the trreatment of animals and terrorists at Guantanamo seem to have no regard whatsoever for the unborn human life. Sounds like hypocracy to me.

Meetoo. Right along with the "activists" who splash pig's blood on wearers of fur while donning leather shoes and eating beef for dinner. (Although none of the liberals I personally know are like that at all.)

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I agree. The agenda, of course, is to keep everyone fucking with minimal consequences so we don't have to go back to the '50s .

I wouldn't put it that way at all, except to acknowledge that people have sex, and have an innate desire to procreate. They just do.
However, an 18 year old that gets pregnant falls under intense scrutiny in our society. I am 25 years old and people look at me weird when I tell them that I have a child.
I think that arguing over a woman's reproductive rights isn't exactly my forte.
I don't pretend to know what it's like to live in a world where everyone wants to tell them what to do with their vaginas, especially radical religious clerics and their "followers."
This is really up to the women to decide. Not the men. I wouldn't like having a cabal of radical females telling em what to do with my genitalia. I will spare them the humiliation.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yes it is recognizable - it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother, now does it? Thats a separate PERSON.

So does a cell of her own, infected with the flu virus. Your standard of 'separate-personhood' is going to need to be more rigorous than: Has unique DNA.

A cell with a virus is not a human being, an unborn fetus is. There is a difference, stop with the rediculous comparisions.

Would you say that a completely brain-dead human kept alive on life support is still a person? What if we had the technology to actually remove the brain completely and keep the body alive on life-support, would you still say this is a person and taking it off life support would be murder?