Abortion is obviously murder.

[KET20]

At the state level, I would like to see walk-in abortion clinics banned. An abortion would a require a doctor's suggestion that the birth of the child would result in either the death of the mother or child.

This solution isn't perfect, I know, but I believe it to be a good option. Any comments?

I think many women know their doctors well enough that, if this were the case, they could get around it. All you'd have to do is get your doctor to write you such a recommendation. It wouldn't have to be true, they'd just have to write it. If this were the law we'd just have loads of pregnant women getting notes and then we'd be wondering why pregnancy was all of a sudden a threat to womens' lives. My doctor when I was a teenager did just such a thing for me. I was getting birth control and my insurance doesn't pay for it, so she wrote a letter to my insurance company saying that it was "medically necessary" (which, of course, it wasn't) so they would start paying for it. Now I realize it's not exactly the same because it wasn't an abortion (because I didn't need permission to have one of those), but it was a similar situation of finding any way possible to get around the regulations to get what you want/need.

 

[icy_crusader]

Well the OP said "abortion is obviously murder." A categorical statement that didn't except ANY of the reasons an abortion might be performed. Any abortion, for any reason, kills a completely innocent human fetus. Do you accept that sometimes, there are cogent reasons to terminate a pregnancy? If you do, as any reasonable person would, then you cannot make such an absolute moral statement as was made in the OP. And then you have the task of explaining in what situations, and why, it may be permissible to kill an innocent fetal human.

I suppose your correct as to the relation to the OP. In a more general statement, though, I disagree for obvious reasons. Where is autumnleaf anyway?

 

[icy_crusader]

I think many women know their doctors well enough that, if this were the case, they could get around it. All you'd have to do is get your doctor to write you such a recommendation. It wouldn't have to be true, they'd just have to write it. If this were the law we'd just have loads of pregnant women getting notes and then we'd be wondering why pregnancy was all of a sudden a threat to womens' lives. My doctor when I was a teenager did just such a thing for me. I was getting birth control and my insurance doesn't pay for it, so she wrote a letter to my insurance company saying that it was "medically necessary" (which, of course, it wasn't) so they would start paying for it. Now I realize it's not exactly the same because it wasn't an abortion (because I didn't need permission to have one of those), but it was a similar situation of finding any way possible to get around the regulations to get what you want/need.

Like I said, it isn't perfect and there will always be loopholes. But, doctors are held by the Hippocratic oath and if they are held under law to treat the fetus as a person, then they will not be able to ethically just write off abortions like that. And yes, there is a difference between a doctor handing out a $3 condom and performing a medical procedure.

 

[icy_crusader]

edit: decided to see if i can find a clearer explanation, i agree with john locke:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

from wikipedia

but thanks for quote mining what i said, you forgot the part after, "other than existing"
my point was that the anti-choice people argue that potential is more important than the person this potential person lives in.


theres nothing wrong with emotion, but i look at most of the anti-choice arguments as special pleading and pure emotionalism.


thats not abortion. if you go down that road, you might as well say not having sex is abortion


who says this? of course they are genetically human, they are not persons though
depends on if they want a baby or not, what kind of question is that?

yes so what? people are taught to call that stage of life a baby, by the way unborn fetus is redundant
i would say its her choice and she can call it what she will, since its inside her

i suppose calling it a fetus is also emotionalism, just the same as calling it a baby.
both terms invoke different feelings, but i really could care less what the genetic offspring is called.
words have history after all, fetus is a clinical term and baby is a common term.
what ever you want to call it, i still think the choice should be up to the mother not to the state or the religion or society

Firstly, I'm going to have to counter your definition for person with Webster's: A human being. A person is simply a human being. To define it any other way is an attempt to remove rights from a person such as when personhood was denied African-Americans and Native Americans for the purpose of taking lands, slavery, etc. Now, babies are being denied their personhood for the sake of the mother's convenience.

On the other points, I actually think I agree with you. And yes, I know unborn fetus is redundant. Feel smarter now?

On another note, I'm willing to continue this discussion on the basis of whether abortion is morally & ethically wrong and not held to the standards of the OP. If this is going to be the case for this whole discussion, then I may as well withdraw now. The legality of the issue in the status quo is obvious.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Various abortion scenarios:

1) Terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

All of these involve killing a fetus. I'm curious as to what people think. Are some permissable and some not? What makes the difference?

I'm confused as to why this is included in your list. An ectopic pregnancy is not viable regardless of whether there is surgical intervention or not. That seems to me to be a very significant difference.

 

[Maren]

Firstly, I'm going to have to counter your definition for person with Webster's: A human being. A person is simply a human being.

Yet this definition doesn't work either, otherwise we would have to define dead humans as people.

Now, I'm sure that you will try to move the goal posts and say that someone dead is rightly denied personhood on the basis of not being alive. But then you are right back to the argument of what defines "life". For example, someone completely brain dead (and please note, by definition brain death is irreversible) can be kept alive with machines -- is that a person, since they are technically alive, or are they dead and no longer a person?

 

[icy_crusader]

Yet this definition doesn't work either, otherwise we would have to define dead humans as people.

Now, I'm sure that you will try to move the goal posts and say that someone dead is rightly denied personhood on the basis of not being alive. But then you are right back to the argument of what defines "life". For example, someone completely brain dead (and please note, by definition brain death is irreversible) can be kept alive with machines -- is that a person, since they are technically alive, or are they dead and no longer a person?

With my definition, the point becomes that the person still has rights which need to be protected. The police have to get a warrant to exhume a dead body. Typically, when someone dies or becomes brain dead, they can no longer make their own decisions. This is the point where their closest relative gain the rights of that individual to make decisions such as whether or not to pull the plug or exhume a body. We wouldn't parade a dead body around in public or put a dead man's body in women's clothing because that would be disrespectful to the person. Legally, there is no such thing as ownership of a dead body. It is not private property. It is not something that belongs to someone else. This leads to the idea that the dead body still maintain personhood, simply that someone else is making decisions for them. Even the family members have to abide by the dead person's will which constitutes that the person still has rights after death. It is the same case if a person is brain dead, if they're will states they do or don't want the plug pulled no one can do it. P.S. I don't think it's moving the goal posts if it's the status quo.

These people, through the course of their lifetime, have made decisions about their associations and have had the chance to make arrangements in the case of death or even brain damage as you stated. The had a choice at some point in their life to decide who would make that decision. An unborn baby doesn't get that choice.

The unborn baby has it's rights taken away from it and never has the chance to decide who will pull the plug. The state has decided for 1.3 million a year and these silent voices suffer the choices of their mothers. If a mother decided that raising a child was too difficult or that her child should not have to go through the foster care system anymore we wouldn't allow her to kill the child.

My definition is logical. The point is whether or not you agree with it. It's about protecting a persons right to life who never had a chance to make that decision them self. The final question is do you consider the unborn baby to be a person? If you do, then you must recognize that this person has rights which must be defended.

 

[Bombila]

It should tell you something that 1.3 million women a year choose to terminate their pregnancies, in the vast majority of cases within the first eight weeks - IOW, as soon as they know they are pregnant, and before the embryo is more than two cm. long. Meanwhile, millions of other embryos are naturally shed in the same gestational period, leading one to wonder, if God intends them all to be unique individuals, he has arranged that so may of them don't even reach the point of developing any neural capacity before dying.

It is a fact that most normal women do not mourn the loss of an eight week pregnancy, unless they are fiercely intent on having a child. And even then, the impact is normally much, much less than if the pregnancy was more advanced, and tremendously less than if they have a stillborn child, or a baby that dies shortly after birth. This should tell you that there really is a difference between a born baby and an embryo.

And I really hope, icy crusader, that you don't actually think a woman should continue an ectopic pregnancy, as neither mother nor child is likely to survive, and it is a horrible death.

 

[jayem]

I'm confused as to why this is included in your list. An ectopic pregnancy is not viable regardless of whether there is surgical intervention or not. That seems to me to be a very significant difference.

I agree with you. But again, I was addressing the OP, which made an unqualified assertion about abortion. My point was to demonstrate that such absolutist statements are not valid.

Though now that the issue's been raised, do you think that any non-viable pregnancy can be terminated? Or only those that threaten the mother's health? There are a host of lethal congenital malformations that may result in stillbirth or, sometimes, a live infant that will die within hours or days. Anencephaly may be the best known. Assuming anencephaly is conclusively diagnosed, would abortion be acceptable to spare the mother the stress of a stillbirth (which may pose some health concerns), or delivery of a child fated to die quickly? How about fatal conditions where the child may live several years, like Tay-Sachs disease?

True, these aren't common situations, but they do exist, and they show that abortion is not a black and white issue. There are all kinds of gray areas. An absolutist position is not possible. There will always be exceptions. Anyone discussing abortion in an intelligent and informed manner should account for these.

 

[icy_crusader]

It should tell you something that 1.3 million women a year choose to terminate their pregnancies, in the vast majority of cases within the first eight weeks - IOW, as soon as they know they are pregnant, and before the embryo is more than two cm. long. Meanwhile, millions of other embryos are naturally shed in the same gestational period, leading one to wonder, if God intends them all to be unique individuals, he has arranged that so may of them don't even reach the point of developing any neural capacity before dying.

It is a fact that most normal women do not mourn the loss of an eight week pregnancy, unless they are fiercely intent on having a child. And even then, the impact is normally much, much less than if the pregnancy was more advanced, and tremendously less than if they have a stillborn child, or a baby that dies shortly after birth. This should tell you that there really is a difference between a born baby and an embryo.

And I really hope, icy crusader, that you don't actually think a woman should continue an ectopic pregnancy, as neither mother nor child is likely to survive, and it is a horrible death.

How many of these pregnancies end because of natural(Gold) causes is irrelevant. what your suggesting is that the mother has the same decision making power as God. If god can end these pregnancies why can't the mother? If God can end a human life at 35 why can't I? And, if you read my other post which included my solution, you would see it would allow doctors to terminate a pregnancy in extreme medical conditions where it is unlikely mother or child is unable to survive.

I'd also be careful in quoting an unquantifiable fact such as, most normal women do not mourn the lose of an eight week pregnancy. Does this imply they had not emotional bond to the child? Does this imply that most women who lost their child within the first 8 weeks didn't want it anyway? What is the statement being made? A fact has a statistic or some kind of reference point behind it. Although, I do agree that the impact is less devastating than more advanced pregnancies, but does not really give a difference between a born baby and an embryo. At eight weeks an embryo is almost fully developed with all major organs, fingers, toes, and a brain.

I suppose you support abortions within that first eight week period, if I am wrong please correct me. And it seems your main line of reasoning on this has been that an unspecified number of those pregnancies end because of natural causes anyway, so they must not be babies. This reasoning is flawed for the same reason I stated above, the mother should not be given a decision which is meant for God or nature for atheists.

 

[cantata]

Why is it bad, as far as the foetus is concerned, to be aborted?

 

[Khameo]

What's with all this talk of the fetus having the right to life? It's irrelevant.

Even assuming we define it as an 'independent person', the mother's right to her own body trumps the fetus' right to life.

 

[icy_crusader]

What's with all this talk of the fetus having the right to life? It's irrelevant.

Even assuming we define it as an 'independent person', the mother's right to her own body trumps the fetus' right to life.

That statement is completely unwarranted and ungrounded. How do you com to the conclusion after accepting the personhood of a fetus that the mother's right to her own body overrides the baby's right to life? That fetus has specific genetic code making it a foreign body within her own. Each person has certain rights including a dead person and a brain dead person. What makes an unborn person any different?

My point keeps coming back to this. If the personhood of the embryo is recognized, then it has an obvious right to life. To combat that you must combat the definition of personhood and to do that requires coming up with new definitions and twisting laws and rules so as to exclude unborn babies. It is the same tactic that was used to keep personhood rights away from African-Americans and Native Americans, both of which we now recognize as great injustices.

 

[Khameo]

That statement is completely unwarranted and ungrounded. How do you com to the conclusion after accepting the personhood of a fetus that the mother's right to her own body overrides the baby's right to life? That fetus has specific genetic code making it a foreign body within her own. Each person has certain rights including a dead person and a brain dead person. What makes an unborn person any different?

My point keeps coming back to this. If the personhood of the embryo is recognized, then it has an obvious right to life. To combat that you must combat the definition of personhood and to do that requires coming up with new definitions and twisting laws and rules so as to exclude unborn babies. It is the same tactic that was used to keep personhood rights away from African-Americans and Native Americans, both of which we now recognize as great injustices.

Sorry. Right to life is annulled if it means violating the right to another's bodily integrity.

Unless you're suggesting that's wrong, in which case I'd like to see you justify the harvesting of required organs and tissues from unwilling donors.

 

[Corey]

With my definition, the point becomes that the person still has rights which need to be protected. The police have to get a warrant to exhume a dead body. Typically, when someone dies or becomes brain dead, they can no longer make their own decisions. This is the point where their closest relative gain the rights of that individual to make decisions such as whether or not to pull the plug or exhume a body.

So the ability to make decisions is what is required for personhood. Thank you for walking right into that.

The unborn baby has it's rights taken away from it and never has the chance to decide who will pull the plug. The state has decided for 1.3 million a year and these silent voices suffer the choices of their mothers. If a mother decided that raising a child was too difficult or that her child should not have to go through the foster care system anymore we wouldn't allow her to kill the child.

Unfortunately for you, a fetus cannot make decisions because they do not have a fully capable nervious system. That means under your definition they are not persons and thus decision-making reverts to the nearest relative (i.e., the mother). Oops to you.

 

[cantata]

What is a right to life, and what does it mean to have it?

And why is it bad, from a foetus' point of view, to be aborted?

 

[Maren]

With my definition, the point becomes that the person still has rights which need to be protected. The police have to get a warrant to exhume a dead body.

Yet a fetus also has rights. In many ways their rights are similar to a dead body, and even closer to someone believed to have no upper brain activity. In both cases their is a legal guardian that is allowed to make decisions for them, including when to remove them from "life support". Someone other than the legal guardian making that decision is considered murder.

Typically, when someone dies or becomes brain dead, they can no longer make their own decisions.

And as I point out above, there is a legal guardian to make their decisions. In the case of the fetus, the mother is always the guardian. After birth, the father becomes a legal guardian, as well (though only if the parents are married).

This is the point where their closest relative gain the rights of that individual to make decisions such as whether or not to pull the plug or exhume a body.

Yes, the closest relative -- just as the closest relative of a fetus (the mother) is given those rights with a fetus.

We wouldn't parade a dead body around in public or put a dead man's body in women's clothing because that would be disrespectful to the person.

No; actually, as you pointed out, this would depend on what the legal guardian wants. While we do not allow dead bodies to be kept in public for long after death, funerals are one such time that they are paraded (though the legal guardian typically tries to keep it respectful. There has also been the Bodies... the Exhibition which has paraded dead bodies.

Legally, there is no such thing as ownership of a dead body. It is not private property. It is not something that belongs to someone else. This leads to the idea that the dead body still maintain personhood, simply that someone else is making decisions for them.

And again, the same is true with fetuses. Just that they were never considered "alive", as society defines it.

Even the family members have to abide by the dead person's will which constitutes that the person still has rights after death. It is the same case if a person is brain dead, if they're will states they do or don't want the plug pulled no one can do it. P.S. I don't think it's moving the goal posts if it's the status quo.

Actually, this isn't really true. What rights the legal guardian has as compared to the will varies from state to state, in many states the legal guardian can actually override what is stated in the will. Beyond that, the legal guardian can elect to remove someone from life support depending on the circumstances (such as brain death) regardless of what the will says.

These people, through the course of their lifetime, have made decisions about their associations and have had the chance to make arrangements in the case of death or even brain damage as you stated. The had a choice at some point in their life to decide who would make that decision. An unborn baby doesn't get that choice.

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. Beyond the fact that there are many who never write a will or select a legal guardian, in which case the closest relative is selected by, children never are able to select their guardian or in what circumstances they choose to live or die.

Instead, the parent(s) is automatically the guardian and is allowed to make all decisions for the child -- the child has no say at all.

The unborn baby has it's rights taken away from it and never has the chance to decide who will pull the plug. The state has decided for 1.3 million a year and these silent voices suffer the choices of their mothers. If a mother decided that raising a child was too difficult or that her child should not have to go through the foster care system anymore we wouldn't allow her to kill the child.

Again, as I've shown, an unborn child does not have its rights taken from it. In fact, it is treated pretty similarly to a child that has been born. If a child depends on life support to live, it is the parents who make the decision on if the child should remain on life support. In the same way, a fetus is on life support, cannot live without life support, so it's mother (who is the legal guardian and is providing the life support) makes the decision of whether the fetus should remain on life support.

My definition is logical. The point is whether or not you agree with it. It's about protecting a persons right to life who never had a chance to make that decision them self. The final question is do you consider the unborn baby to be a person? If you do, then you must recognize that this person has rights which must be defended.

I do recognize the unborn have rights. We don't allow mothers (again, since they are acting as life support) to do things that would endanger the child, just like we would not allow a child's legal guardian to do things that would endanger the child (even if it is on life support). We don't allow others to harm the mother in such a way as to harm the baby, if they do they are charged with crimes against both the mother and the fetus. But, like a child on life support, it is allowed to be removed by the legal guardian -- though it is a crime for someone else to remove life support without the legal guardian making that decision first.

 

[TeddyKGB]

My point keeps coming back to this. If the personhood of the embryo is recognized, then it has an obvious right to life. To combat that you must combat the definition of personhood and to do that requires coming up with new definitions and twisting laws and rules so as to exclude unborn babies.

Naturally. Because "personhood" is such a specific term, with concrete, unchanging meaning going back centuries. So well-accepted is it that my spellchecker doesn't recognize it.

It is the same tactic that was used to keep personhood rights away from African-Americans and Native Americans, both of which we now recognize as great injustices.

I can easily, and without contradiction, provide a definition of "personhood" that excludes fetuses but includes Native Americans.

 

[Bombila]

How many of these pregnancies end because of natural(Gold) causes is irrelevant. what your suggesting is that the mother has the same decision making power as God. If god can end these pregnancies why can't the mother? If God can end a human life at 35 why can't I? And, if you read my other post which included my solution, you would see it would allow doctors to terminate a pregnancy in extreme medical conditions where it is unlikely mother or child is unable to survive.

I'd also be careful in quoting an unquantifiable fact such as, most normal women do not mourn the lose of an eight week pregnancy. Does this imply they had not emotional bond to the child? Does this imply that most women who lost their child within the first 8 weeks didn't want it anyway? What is the statement being made? A fact has a statistic or some kind of reference point behind it. Although, I do agree that the impact is less devastating than more advanced pregnancies, but does not really give a difference between a born baby and an embryo. At eight weeks an embryo is almost fully developed with all major organs, fingers, toes, and a brain.

I suppose you support abortions within that first eight week period, if I am wrong please correct me. And it seems your main line of reasoning on this has been that an unspecified number of those pregnancies end because of natural causes anyway, so they must not be babies. This reasoning is flawed for the same reason I stated above, the mother should not be given a decision which is meant for God or nature for atheists.

No, I'm suggesting that if God has such deep concern for embryos, why does he allow so many to be naturally rejected? If you believe every embryo is a little human complete with soul, yet so many of them die (naturally) without ever developing as much neural activity as a slug, then God has a very peculiar habit of harvesting souls which have never been attached to an intelligent being, which seems rather in conflict with how we are generally expected to understand God's plans for humans - is this likely?

I'm saying that if, as a theist, you are looking for God's attitude towards embryos, surely it lies here, in the endless production of non-viable embryos which are sloughed off by womens' bodies. It surely looks as if embryos are produced on the basis of 'make lots, some will stick', IOW, a biological process which is not 'special' to God at all.

Has nothing to do with women acting as God, but women in charge of their own bodies and the biological products thereof.

I am old enough to have known a great many women who have had miscarriages or who lost very early embryos, self included, and including devout Christian women. It is a fact observable by anyone who knows a number of women through their reproductive lives that such early miscarriages rarely result in any particular emotional upheaval. Even a disappointed would-be mother is most likely to have a 'try-again' attitude. (There are exceptions, such as women who really want children and have repeated miscarriages.) But the general affect of such women is what one expects of a biological event, not the loss of a child.

Here is an interesting article regarding embryonic and foetal brain development. People tend not to understand what 'brain' and 'brainwaves' mean in the context of fetal development. This might help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/0619-1st-gazza.html?pagewanted=print


My line of reasoning (and I support choice way past eight weeks) is that the production of embryos is a biological process that happens way more often than necessary, given that most women, even those who use no birth control at all, will have only a comparatively small number of children. It is common that reproductive systems act this way - a tree will produce thousands more seeds than necessary, fungi send out millions of spores, fish spawn hundreds of eggs/larva, and so on. Most embryonic creatures are not expected to reach maturity; their numbers are large to ensure some survive.

So, God or nature, I think far too much importance is attached to human embryos, and see no reason why the woman whose body is harbouring one shouldn't remove it if that is what she wants. It is her body. It is her biological product. It is her decision.

 

[icy_crusader]

Yet a fetus also has rights. In many ways their rights are similar to a dead body, and even closer to someone believed to have no upper brain activity. In both cases their is a legal guardian that is allowed to make decisions for them, including when to remove them from "life support". Someone other than the legal guardian making that decision is considered murder.



And as I point out above, there is a legal guardian to make their decisions. In the case of the fetus, the mother is always the guardian. After birth, the father becomes a legal guardian, as well (though only if the parents are married).



Yes, the closest relative -- just as the closest relative of a fetus (the mother) is given those rights with a fetus.



No; actually, as you pointed out, this would depend on what the legal guardian wants. While we do not allow dead bodies to be kept in public for long after death, funerals are one such time that they are paraded (though the legal guardian typically tries to keep it respectful. There has also been the Bodies... the Exhibition which has paraded dead bodies.





And again, the same is true with fetuses. Just that they were never considered "alive", as society defines it.



Actually, this isn't really true. What rights the legal guardian has as compared to the will varies from state to state, in many states the legal guardian can actually override what is stated in the will. Beyond that, the legal guardian can elect to remove someone from life support depending on the circumstances (such as brain death) regardless of what the will says.



Actually, this isn't necessarily true. Beyond the fact that there are many who never write a will or select a legal guardian, in which case the closest relative is selected by, children never are able to select their guardian or in what circumstances they choose to live or die.

Instead, the parent(s) is automatically the guardian and is allowed to make all decisions for the child -- the child has no say at all.



Again, as I've shown, an unborn child does not have its rights taken from it. In fact, it is treated pretty similarly to a child that has been born. If a child depends on life support to live, it is the parents who make the decision on if the child should remain on life support. In the same way, a fetus is on life support, cannot live without life support, so it's mother (who is the legal guardian and is providing the life support) makes the decision of whether the fetus should remain on life support.



I do recognize the unborn have rights. We don't allow mothers (again, since they are acting as life support) to do things that would endanger the child, just like we would not allow a child's legal guardian to do things that would endanger the child (even if it is on life support). We don't allow others to harm the mother in such a way as to harm the baby, if they do they are charged with crimes against both the mother and the fetus. But, like a child on life support, it is allowed to be removed by the legal guardian -- though it is a crime for someone else to remove life support without the legal guardian making that decision first.

There were a lot of replies from different people, but yours is the only one which seems to maintain logic, so I'll reply to you.

Your general point seems to be that the unborn child's legal guardian and decision maker becomes the mother. While you are correct in your reasoning, there are some points I want to argue.

First, let's start with the living will. I would like to see some evidence as to when a health care provider has denied life support to a person with a living will which that in the event of imminent death or their being terminally ill that all measures should be taken to keep them alive was trumped.

Further points regarding the rights of the dead are irrelevant now. since we both agree that the unborn do have rights, then I think we should continue in a vein concerning what those rights are and why. This does not mean i concede them, just that I'm putting them aside as getting in the way and creating a mess. If you disagree, let me know.

Second, you point out a child doesn't get to choose their legal guardian. In some cases they do, some cases they don't. In the event of a divorce the child may choose, or a child may even be emancipated if they wished. In fact, they could even be taken away from their parents at some point and then the decision would belong to someone else. My point is that the unborn never have the chance to live a life that decides this who this person will be. Everyone has the chance to write out a living will, if they do not then that is their own fault and suffer the consequence of having guardianship being passed to the closest relative in the case of death.

I believe the unborn have a right to begin life just like anyone else. I think when we see that over 90% of these women choose to have an abortion because of the inconvenience of a baby in their lives that there is really no good reason to deny these unborn life with exception of a major medical condition (i.e. ectopic pregnancy).