long winded fool

Why do I accept the fact that you don't believe in infanticide, yet when I poison my 10-month-old child, you think I ought to go to jail? He doesn't feel any pain, and he certainly doesn't understand that he's dying, he just dies peacefully. I am tolerant of you, why can't you be tolerant of me? Obviously the argument of "respecting another's personal choice" does not hold water when discussing laws. In this case, you are being just as intolerant of my beliefs as I am of yours. Granted, since abortion IS legal, no one has the right to imprison you or fine you for having or performing an abortion. The to quest to make abortion illegal is the quest to take away your right to abortion, i.e. because anti-abortionists do not respect your right to have an abortion. You are right, this IS intolerance, in the same way that taking away American's rights to kill infants is intolerance. Before slavery was outlawed, was it right? Because anti-slavery activists had to legally respect the rights of slave owners didn't make slavery any less wrong. Anti-slavery activists DIDN'T respect the beliefs of slave owners and this country is a better place for it.

The tumor analogy is not valid. If I kill a woman with a tumor, I can only be charged on one count of murder. If I kill a pregnant woman I can (and will) be charged with two counts regardless of whether the murdered woman valued her embryo or not. This means that embryos are intrinsically human and carry value from conception, by law. If they didn't, no one who killed a pregnant woman could ever be charged on two counts of murder unless they had a completely incompetent lawyer. If embryos were not human, then the murderer’s rights would logically supercede the embryos rights. This value of embryonic humanity, however, can be legally revoked by the person on whom the embryo relies to sustain itself. This is the crux of the issue. What gives one human the right to revoke the right to life of another? A woman can give a newborn up for adoption but she can't kill him... unless he hasn't yet left the birth canal.

Rationally speaking, forcing the horror of discomfort on one human is preferable to forcing death on another. Since the law views embryos as human, and since the Civil Rights of all Americans specifically state that all men are created equal, (men being synonymous with 'all humans' here in the twenty first century) it is not logical to discriminate against a certain segment of humans because they cause discomfort to the majority.

"Why don't you just tell us? You pose these theoretical questions a lot, but you STILL (after repeated requests) have NOT told us why an early fetus has any value."

An early fetus has value (and is human) by law. If it didn't, killing a pregnant woman would ALWAYS be only one count of murder. What is so difficult about this logic? If you are asking me to be your conscience, I certainly can't do that. Why you should value an early fetus is because an early fetus is a human by law... until the mother revokes its humanity. Our personal beliefs are irrelevant. Logically, the pro-abortionist stance is that humans who haven't left the birth canal are humans (because the law views them as such) whose rights are determined by another. This is not equality. If you can prove that embryos are not human in the same sense as developed humans, and thus don't have the right to life, then logically I could purposely cause a miscarriage without being a murderer. Since I can't, embryos are human. I understand that the laws are twisted. That is, in fact, my argument. But please tell me where my logic is twisted. The fact that you cannot follow this does not make it false. If you cannot follow it, then one (or both) of us is using errant logic and we will never come to a rational conclusion. If it is me, then please show me where. I'm trying to show you that it's your logic that's faulty. If you will not follow my reasoning, then you are simply being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Sabine Grant

Hello Long Winded Fool ! it appears that what determines the value of the human embryo is whether it is wanted or not wanted. Not the status of protection eagle's eggs may have. Same with sea turtle's eggs. There is actualy no status of protection on the human embryo.
The Supreme Court did not recognize any constitutional identity to the human zygote,embryo or fetus which then leaves it to be without any rights whatsoever.
I suppose that if for any reason the human race were to be classified as in danger of extinction, abortions would be prohibited.( same status as some species'eggs).
I am somewhat disturbed myself by the lack of persona of the human fetus based on a legal debate. I would like to see scientific data to be part of that evaluation of the persona of the human fetus.
If we define life in an already born human being with the presence of both vital signs and brain activity, why does it not apply to the unborn being who displays the same qualifications?
IMO that aspect of the human fetus has been left in the closet as it would raise questions as to limit abortions to a certain stage of development of the fetus.
So the law dwells on the actual moment of physical birth to apply protection on the same being.
As science and medecine progress, the viability of the human fetus outside the womb will be improved from 24 weeks to earlier stages. The legislation is bound to be modified if we allow scientific data to be included.
In reality, how much time does a woman need to make the decision to abort? a few weeks to the maximum unless she was willing to carry out the pregnancy to further stages and faced medical conditions that warranted an abortion later on in her pregnancy. In other words, can we justify abortions past two months based on the unwantedness only? those are risky questions to ask because they may open the door to " you want to restrict the right for women to choose".
But every woman can still choose with proper education and scientific data so noone lingers in unwanted pregnancy past a few weeks.
We either face head on the scientific reality of what constitutes life ( as I defined previously) and declare the human fetus to be alive and with a persona which will result in limiting abortions to a certain stage of the pregnancy or we keep it all in the closet and avoid establishing the reality that it is all based on the fetus being wanted or unwanted.

Except for medical cases, abortion and the right to choose are based on wantedness or unwantedness. No other argument supports it.

The right to choose is based on the reality that the body of the mother is what provides life support to the fetus. Because she owns her own body and decides of its functions, she then has the right to support that life or terminate its support. And it is her choice to want to do it or not do it that determines her decision and right to apply it. That is what I percieve as pro choice logic.

IMO, both pro choice and pro life logics must meet half way to establish some degree of scientific reality which demonstrates the persona of the fetus and restores the fact that this tiny being is not owned by anyone. It is supported but not owned.

IMO 1.5 million of abortions per year in the US can be avoided. Conception control of course and distributed at no cost with medical supervision.Mandatory measures of mercy such as anesthesia during an abortion performed on an embryo or fetus determined to be sensitive to physical pain. Except for exceptional cases, abortion to be limited to a time table determined by scientific data which establishes at what point we deal with vital signs and brain activity.
Sex Ed curriculum in schools which will include the stages of development from zygote to fetus with details as to when the heart beat starts and brain activity presence.( I honestly think that most kids will be more diligent in using conception control measures as they become sexualy active as they face the scientific reality of a fetus rather than be led to believe that it is nothing more than a tumor or parasite or etc....).On my last miscarriage( 11 weeks I can still hear the words of the nurse who asked me to carry a little container to the lab with the "material of conception"... as I was still remembering those little feet left over from a previous abortion at 12 weeks!)
As much as I respect the pro choice logic, I want to see a concern for the fetus. They are not uncompatible. The humanity of the unborn can be used as an argument to place a greater sense of responsibility in the minds of sexualy active individuals. But it has been suppressed for fear that extremist pro lifers would use it as the reason to promote total anti abortion legislation.

We have to somehow be a better society where men and women engaged in consentual sex prevent conception... not birth.

LordSnooty

You should be able to do exactly that. It should fall under a crime of serious assault (actually, if it's near to birth I'd be more predisposed to call it murder, but that's not really the issue). Assault, that is, upon the woman. Not the fetus directly. The crime should be centred on the woman that was forced to lose her potential offspring, not on the rights of the fetus itself.
Do you allow law (or the strange misinterpretation thereof) to dictate all of your moral choices? Do you have a moral sense of your own? You can't just say 'the law assigns humans value, therefore a fetus has the same value'. It just doesn't follow.

You say this isn't about morality, well clearly it is. You wouldn't be so feverently anti-abortion if you didn't think that the sweet little baby zygotes were being murdered. Unless you're just naturally argumentative
I've tried, but you're not listening. I shall summarise:

If you cannot show that abortion is morally wrong without recourse to misintepretting the legal system, then you have no case.

Saying 'a fetus is a human, to kill a fetus is murder' is fine, but you can't tell us why. And I don't care what the law says constitutes 'murder'. I care why it should constitute murder.

Paul

LordSnooty

I agree. I think a strict time limit would be acceptable, based on the best scientific evidence to prevent the death of a fetus that has brain activity.

The trouble is, that would never be enough for the right wing brigade. For them, compromise is not even on the agenda.

I've seen some claiming that they would not allow abortions even if the mother's life was in danger.
I agree. Again.

Paul

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by LordSnooty:
<strong>
I've seen some claiming that they would not allow abortions even if the mother's life was in danger. </strong>

Thanks to the Nutwatch, I've come across two people stating this point of view.

Doubting Didymus

Well, this conversation appears to have moved on without me. Bloody hell, where do I start?

I think lord snooty has done a fine job refuting your eagle scenario, longwinded. It had me thinking for a while, but Snooty is right: the eggs are not protected because they are eagles. They are protected because destroying an egg is contributing to the demise of a species. The egg has been given a value of its own that is not related to its being equal to an eagle. Let me know if you want to go into this further.

Marco, I still can not for the life of me see how the idea that embryo=adult applies only to humans. We're "better", therefore our embryos are equal to us. Trees are less valuable, therefore they are more than their embyos. That does not follow logically at all. If your contention is that an embryo is an adult, then that should apply to all embryos unless there is something significantly different about the nature of the particular embryo - adult relationship. In this case, there is not. The relationship between embryo and human is exactly the same relationship as in acorn and oak tree. The higher value of a human does not change the relationship to the embryo, only the value of the embryo. This is simple logic. Your premises do not allow you to make the distinction you make. If you want to do that, you must introduce a new premise which you have not done.

To spell this out a little clearer. Your premise is "embryos have the same value as adults". From this we got:

Embryo = human.... But we also got: Acorn = Oak tree.

The difference you propose is that humans have a much increased value over oak trees. However, this does not change the actual embry adult relationship, only the respective values of the two scenarios. What your new premise actually does is this:

Very important embryo = very important adult human.
AND
Less important acorn = less important oak tree.

It does not change the fact that your original premise requires that both of these relationships are respectively constant. Even if trees are less valuable (they are, of course), your argument still insists that an acorn is equal to an oak tree.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Puck

longwindedfool writes:
Why do I accept the fact that you don't believe in infanticide, yet when I poison my 10-month-old child, you think I ought to go to jail? He doesn't feel any pain, and he certainly doesn't understand that he's dying, he just dies peacefully. I am tolerant of you, why can't you be tolerant of me?

Because we all agree that your 10 year old child is fully a human being. However, alot of people do not agree that a 5 month old fetus is fully human.

You wrote:
If you will not follow my reasoning, then you are simply being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Oh wow, do you see what you just said? You said more with that one sentence than with the hundres of words prior to that. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. You can talk about poisioning babies and eagle eggs and oak trees and slavery if you wish. Maybe I'm too stupid to get you. Maybe you're just chasing your tail around your oak tree. Regardless, I'm taking off my gerbil suit now. Ta.

MarcoPolo

First of all, you seem to be missing when I use a certain term. I use technically a lot. This is important for this discussion becuase in making a DIRECT comparison with embryo/acorn to human/tree, all you've said so far is technically correct.

This is being realistic. Again, technically you are correct.

It follows logically if you take into account the relative value of each. Frankly, I'm surprised you're having such a problem with this.

You're getting it now! There IS something different about the nature of a tree embryo-adult relationship. IT'S NOT HUMAN!

Right. Technically.

Right. It doesn't change the relationship technically. I agree with you there.

And with that I'm not arguing with you.

Then it was my fault for not pointing out the obvious ahead of time. Sorry about that.

Wrong. That's not my premise. My premise is 'HUMAN embryos have the same value as adults.'

Right. That's what I've been saying all along.

Right. It insists that technically. But since you HAVE to take the value of the species into account, realistically it isn't.

I don't know any way else to make this argument. You agreed that trees are less valuable than humans and I've agreed that technically the relationship is the same.

MarcoPolo

And in this case, majority rules.

Back when slavery was 'legal,' there was the majority of people that wanted it and a vocal minority that rallied against it. In that case, even though it was 'wrong,' it was still legal.

I think I see the same thing going on here with abortion.

I guess my only question for this is, what makes a 5 month old fetus not human and not a 6-9 month old fetus? Why did you set that arbitrary line there?

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: MarcoPolo ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Marco, saying that I am only right TECHNICALLY, does not help your case. I do not see the difference between being technically correct and being just plain old correct.

this:
Makes no sense at all. Not being human does not change the fact that tree development from acorns is directly analogous to human development from embryos. Again: the fact that trees are less valuable than humans gives you:

Very important embryo = very important adult human.
AND
Less important acorn = less important oak tree.

It does not give you any changes in the actual relationship between the acorn and the tree. You have not yet demonstrated exactly what it is about humans than makes them the same as their zygote, if this does not apply to other species. You cannot escape this without altering or adding to your argument.