bd-from-kg

ReasonableDoubt:
I'm not sure what you find "curious" about this comment, but I'll take a guess that it was the reference to Jews. I chose them as an example because, as a matter of historical fact, Jews have been denied legal protections afforded to most other people in more countries and over a longer time than any other identifiable group (except, perhaps, for women).

I would hope that the general point was obvious. If the law extends certain rights to some human beings but not others, it expresses "respect" for the feature that distinguishes the favored group from the others, not for human life as such.

Jayhawker Soule

Yes, the general point was obvious. The question is whether or not it's applicable. By the way, I would be interested in your comments on the "possible steps" offered.

Jamie_L

bd-from-kg:
<strong>...the point of most laws is not to punish people for “sinning” or doing “wicked” things, but to protect people from being harmed by others. The point of laws against abortion is to protect the fetus...This has nothing to do with “measuring other people’s lives”...</strong>

Granted. My point was that although I wouldn't want someone I got pregnant to get an abortion, that is not a good enough reason to have a law against it. I think we agree on that.

Now, the question is: does the fetus deserve a law protecting it? Is the fetus a separate entity entitled to protection? Is it thus from the moment of conception, or does this status occur later?

I would say conception is not the point at which the fetus becomes a separate entity from the mother. If the egg is not a separate entity, mere fertilization does not change that. It is the level of development of the fetus that causes it to be considered a separate entity at some point. Sometimes viability is used to mark this point, since it defines the time at which the fetus acutally could exist separate from the mother. Perhaps some other level of development could be argued.

Further, it is nearly impossible to disentangle the rights of the fetus from the rights of the mother. They impact each other, sometimes in contradictory ways. This is most obvious in cases where the pregnancy causes a risk to health or life of the mother. In this case, does the fetus' rights outweight the rights of the mother to protect her health and life? I'd say no. Other problems are more of a grey area. Do the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the woman to not have to go through the general risk, stress, and discomfort of pregnancy and delivery? Is this true at all stages of development?

<strong>
Would you care to describe these ethical problems?
</strong>

I subscribe to the notion that early in the pregnancy the fetus has limited if any rights compared to the rights of the mother. At later stages of development, the rights of the fetus are more definite. Thus, a late-term abortion is something the Fetus deserves protection from. An early-term abortion is not.

<strong>So there should be no laws that apply only to women? Perhaps we should repeal the laws against rape and sexual assault? What about sexual harassment laws? What about the laws regarding alimony and child support?</strong>

These are incorrect analogies. In the case of rape laws, the man is the criminal, not the woman. Sexual assault and harrassment laws can be applied to both genders depending on the circumstances. Alimony and child support are likewise these days.

My point is that I am uncomfortable with the notion of men, who have never faced, nor will they ever have to face the idea of carying a baby to term and going through delivery, deciding what is and is not criminal with regards to a woman's reproductive system. It's easy for some man to say "well, let her have the kid and give it up for adoption."

<strong>
And what does being old have to do with anything?</strong>

OK. I'll back off of this one. I have reasons for thinking it, but there probably not well-justified.

<strong>
Anyway, surely it’s obvious that, even though these legislatures consist largely of men, they are exquisitely sensitive to the concerns of women.</strong>

I don't know if the members of N.O.W. would agree with that.

<strong>
It seems plausible that, if legislatures pass laws against abortion, it will be because a majority of their constituents have come to support such laws, and just possibly because they care about what happens to unborn children.</strong>

And just possibly because they care less about what happens to the women who have to carry and deliver those unborn children. Human pregnancy and childbirth is a physically unpleasant and risky proposition (miracle of birth my ass). The rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus have to be weighed against each other, and I don't believe it's at all cut-and-dried at all stages of the pregnancy.

Jamie

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

bg: Do you have a position, or do you simply enjoy playing class leader?

Boro Nut

Look Brian, if your so confused I think you should just have the kid and stop worrying. Think about the extra familly allowance and council flat you will get.

Boro Nut

spin

Jamie_L:
-----------------------
Having lost a child late in a pregnancy, it's hard for me to fathom wanting to end a pregnancy on purpose.

But that's me, and I know from all sorts of other situations that I'm not the yardstick that ought to be used to measure other people's lives.

I've got ethical problems with late-term abortions that don't involve protecting the mother's health/life.

Bottom line, though is I have a hard time justifying laws written by largely old, male legislative bodies that apply only to female constituents - mostly young ones at that. And as someone has mentioned - what really does the most good for society?
-----------------------

I must say that I greatly appreciated this post in its presentation of the complexity of the human predicament and the writer's awareness of the problems involved, her sincerity and openness.

Thank you, Jamie_L.

Jamie_L

Thanks. For the record, it's his sincerity and openness. (Damn this dual-gender name.)

Jamie

Jayhawker Soule

I am as well, but I'm equally uncomfortable with a society willing to recast the issue of 'life' into one of 'choice'. Perhaps the best hypothetical I can think of is the woman, 8 months pregnant, who is physically attacked. She recovers but the fetus dies. This woman would almost certainly 'choose' to believe that the attacker killed her unborn child. Who decides?

Jamie_L

Absolutely. A large problem with the debate in general is conflicting definitions, and vague if any legal definitions. As I said earlier, I think the issues of "life" and "choice" are overlapping, and the issue of "rights" feeds in as well. Unfortunately, extremists on both sides are unwilling to get into this necessary process of definitions, because it would represent a compromise of their absolutism.

Jamie

bd-from-kg

ReasonableDoubt:

Well, when I wrote the original comment it seemed clear to me that you think it’s applicable. You said:

This implies that you believe that: (1) Human life as such is worthy of, and entitled to, respect, and (2) abortion is inconsistent with a decent respect for human life. This in turn implies that you believe that (3) fetuses are a form of human life entitled to respect; in fact, that (4) failing to respect this particular form of human life is “socially destructive”. Given all that, I don’t see how you can question the “applicability” of my comment that failing to extend legal protection to some human lives (such as fetuses) shows disrespect for human life as such. Of course, you might not agree that withholding legal protection to a human life shows disrespect for it. But I suspect that you would see the point very quickly if your life were the one from which legal protection was withheld, so that anyone could rob you, beat you, rape you, or kill you without fear of any legal consequences. And if this were done to you, wouldn’t it show a disrespect for human life as such? After all, those who were protected would not be protected by virtue of being human, but because they met some other criterion.

I see no reason to think that any of them (except possibly for a medical breakthrough in contraceptive methods) would have a significant effect on abortion. Do you really think that many women have abortions because they didn’t know how to keep this from getting pregnant, or because they didn’t have reasonable access to contraceptives? How many women who have abortions would elect to carry the child to term if only better pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal service were available? How many would carry to term and put their child up for adoption if only adoption procedures were streamlined? And as for the attitudes you allude to in the final point, I’m baffled. Is there a stigma attached to taking sex education courses, using contraceptives, or availing oneself of pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal services? If so, I’m not aware of it.

Yes, I have a position. I explained it in some detail in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000370&p=5" target="_blank">this thread</a>. (My first post is on page 5, with the time stamp May 19, 2001 12:59 PM.)

As for playing class leader: this thread was going nowhere. Everyone was more or less in agreement, so no one (except for the short exchange between bree and kctan) was offering any real arguments; everyone was just saying what they believed, and that was that. What’s wrong with trying to shake things up under these conditions by challenging people to produce actual arguments?