Viti

Hey kids...don't make me come in there or you're gonna get it....

In all seriousness guys, it's an emotional topic, I know but please try to keep it to a dull roar, and disagree as nicely as possible considering the subject...your cooperation is appreciated

Carry on

Danya

Of course. It's the one size fit's all answer. How original. Well, thanks for the debate. I see the only answers I will hear are your insightful explanations about how it's a life as soon as it's a zygote. I don't agree.

Danya

What other laws are you talking about?

I never said anything about the unborn unchild

bd-from-kg

tronvillain:

Well, yes, actually it does. Of course to make this rigorous one would have to define exactly what one means by “complete”, but obviously a fertilized egg is a complete member of the human species in a sense in which a heart, for example, is not. I saw no point (and still don’t) in getting into this in great detail since it isn’t all that relevant. Being “complete” in the sense I had in mind is not a necessary condition for qualifying as a human being, but it is certainly sufficient.

If my position were (as you seem to be assuming) that being a member of the human species automatically and by definition qualifies an individual as being entitled to legal protection, this subject might be worth discussing in more detail. But that’s not my position, so it isn’t.

The standard practice in discussing abortion is to use “human being” to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens and “person” to mean someone entitled to legal protection. That’s how I’ve been using these terms, and part of what I’ve been doing is to encourage others to do the same so that we have a common vocabulary to work with.

But we do not treat people differently under the law on the basis of level of development, except in the sense that I noted in my reply to Jamie_L (i.e., people at a lower level of development are given some “special” rights and denied others for their own protection). What we do not do (with the exception of legalizing abortion) is deny legal protection to some because they are at a low “level of development”. Legal abortion is a unique anomaly in our legal system.

And we absolutely do not treat people differently under the law based on how much they are “valued”. To do so would be an outrageous breach of our duty to treat everyone equally and impartially under the law.

It isn’t just possible that we might choose to do so. We have made a principled decision to do so. I explained the reasons for adopting this principle at some length in the “12-week-fetus” thread cited earlier and will presumably do so here in due course.

That doesn’t follow at all. We also give legal protection to senile 95-year-olds with no living relatives, who are of no apparent value to society and whom no one cares about. We do not give the same kind of legal protection to a pet cat, even if its owner cares about it deeply. Our decisions as to whom to extend legal protection to are not based on who is the more “valued”. It would seem that you have little understanding of the foundations of our legal system.

Let me say it again: this isn’t about who people “value” or “should” value. In view of the fact that our legal system is based on equal protection of the law for all human beings, the burden falls on those who want to make an exception to this principle to justify doing so. In other words, if advocates of legal abortion cannot make a compelling positive case for making an exception to this principle, the pro-life position wins by default.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Danya

And one more question, haven't these couples ever heard of adoption? My guess is that they have and for personal reasons they have decided this is not how they want to create their family or were unable to adopt. Which they do have the right to just as a woman has the right to forgo adoption as the answer to her unwanted pregnancy.

Jamie_L

bd-from-kg:
Okay. For the record I was probably confusing terms in some of my previous posts. I will accept that a zygote/embrio/fetus is a "human being" under this definition. To restate my opinion in the these terms, I think level of development is important to determining whether the zygote/embrio/fetus is a "person" and entitled to legal protections.

So, I would say it is not necessarily an inconsistency in the law for abortions to be legal during levels of development at which do not qualify as a person.

And, to restate my unfertilized egg/zygote comparisson: What is it about the fertilized egg that makes it a person the instant after conception?

Jamie

callina

Yes. And how many children from unwanted pregnancies have you adopted? What gives a couple the right to continue an unplanned pregnancy, give birth, and then depend upon the kindness of strangers to provide for this child until they reach adulthood? While many couples are looking to adopt healthy infants in this country, there are many other children who are not considered "adoptable".

This is a tough area for me because I have a beautiful adopted son and I am very grateful to his birthparents for placing him with us. But, I get frustrated with anti-abortionists who see adoption as a cure-all for unplanned pregnancies.

I have also been in the position of having to terminate a pregnancy to preserve my own life. Emotionally, that 6 week old embryo was the hope for a baby I had been wanting for years. Was it a human being? It had the potential to become my child, but it was no more than that. Do not think that terminating that hope was easy, but it was certainly not murder.

[edited to fix quote]

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: callina ]</p>

echidna

Echoes, the Sudanese example highlights many of the reasons I object so strongly to the so-called overpopulation problem. Here overpopulation is clearly a symptom, not a cause. Those who suggest that we must strongly attack the overpopulation problem are risking the application of simply more totalitarianism on an already oppressed population. Overpopulation becomes an simplistic mask to disguise the true causes of human suffering.

Then many of our priorities inappropriately shift to treating symptoms, leaving the true causes firmly in place.

Rather than risk dragging the original discussion further off-topic, if you want to respond, please do so in the recent overpopulation threads.

I should add that that’s not to say that I don’t support widespread increase of availability of voluntary contraception. But I believe that such draconian measures as state-enforced one-child policies are largely unwarranted.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

bd-from-kg

Jamie_L:

“Equal protection” means that the fetus and the mother have an equal right to be protected against being killed, and that they have an equal right to be protected against restrictions on their freedom. It does not mean that the right to life is to be treated as “equal” to the right not to have one’s freedom restricted. In other words, it doesn’t mean that all rights are equal; it means that all people have the same rights, and in equal measure. Thus, for example, the penalty for murdering someone is the same whether the person in question is a young billionaire with a loving family or an impoverished, senile 95-year-old childless widow. But the penalty for killing the billionaire is not the same as the penalty for stealing his wallet.

Yes, “rights” often come into conflict. When they do, the resolution is based on which rights take priority, not who’s more “valuable” or “developed”. Even so, there are sometimes tough calls. But abortion doesn’t strike me as one of them. If the fetus is a person, there’s really no question which rights take priority here.

Equal protection does not mean trying to produce equal outcomes. People with IQ’s of 160 tend to have more attractive life options than those with IQ’s of 90, and attractive people with likeable personalities have more attractive life options than ugly grouches. But equal protection does not require the law to try to “remedy” such situations by seeing to it that everyone has equally attractive life options. In other words, the “protection” in “equal protection” does not refer to protection against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but protection against being harmed by other people.

Danya

I may be reading this wrong but it appears that you are saying that the fetus rights should always take priority over the woman's rights. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If that is the case you are saying there is no question that the right of the fetus in Callina's case was more important than hers. The outcome is unimportant as long as the law allows the fetus to become a child in every case.

Edit that to say that the law makes it illegal to interfere with the fetus becoming a child otherwise you run the risk of blaming women who miscarry.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Danya ]

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Danya ]</p>