| Author |
Topic:
Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
Master_Ben
Registered:
Aug '01
|
Date Posted:
2/5/02 5:11pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
Thought you guys might find this interesting. I don't know if it is old news but I don't think so.
Article
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
2/5/02 5:37pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
Thought you guys might find this interesting. I don't know if it is old news but I don't think so.
I heard about the Chinese policy on single-child families and its enforcement via abortion several years ago. I didn't know that we were funding it, though.
IF you can take the child out of the mother's womb and give it the proper nutrition, it's a human baby, that much is clear.
A-ha! Thank you for making that clear. That's what I've been looking for: a point at which even the pro-choicers can agree that a fetus can be considered a human child.
But then my question is this: Would you support a law prohibiting abortion at this point? It would mean that instead of performing partial-birth abortions on these babies, the doctors would have to deliver them all the way (or remove them by cesarean section). I don't understand what would justify an abortion at this stage, but it still happens -- would you support such a ban?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
2/5/02 6:31pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
From what I understand, the law already prohibits abortions in the third term when the child is already a child.
Ok, I'm not up to speed on partial birth abortions, but is the fetus or whatever, can you take it out of the mother's womb as a premie, or would it be dead anyway?
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
2/5/02 9:38pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
- Date Edited:
2/5/02 9:40pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
womberty
|
Ok, I'm not up to speed on partial birth abortions, but is the fetus or whatever, can you take it out of the mother's womb as a premie, or would it be dead anyway?
The way I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong!), a partial-birth abortion is a form of late-term abortion where they induce labor, deliver the baby's body except for the head, then vacuum out the brain to collapse the head and pull it the rest of the way out. I daresay if the child is large enough that this is how they have to extract it (i.e. they can't use a saline solution or cut it up in utero), it is most likely the same as any other preemie born between 5-9 months.
I think, from your statements, that you agree with me that this is wrong, and the child should be allowed to live at that stage in its development.
What we disagree on is how far back you could recognize the child's rights. I can easily understand how that you would not see a single fertilized egg, or small group of cells, the same way that you see a baby that is in the third trimester. My question is where the change takes place from "clump of cells" to "baby". You say it takes place when the baby could survive outside the womb. I'm not fully convinced; I think that since it has a functioning brain even earlier in the development, perhaps the line could be drawn at an earlier stage.
The two places where it is most convenient to draw the line are conception and birth; we can recognize both as major points in the child's development. However, once we realize that the baby is alive within the womb, and can be considered just as human some time before birth as it is immediately after, it becomes a question of where else we can place the line. The fundamentalists suggest that conception be the new standard. In some ways, they have a reasonable argument since it is difficult to define a point at which a clump of human fetal tissue suddenly becomes a baby; in some sense, it is a human life all the way through. However, it is very difficult for people who are not so fundamentalist in their beliefs to see it in the same way.
I'm wondering whether there is any reasonable solution that balances the woman's rights with the child's. Yours is reasonable in the sense that it recognizes the child as an individual when it is capable of surviving as an individual. However, I am not certain whether that should be the way we measure its individuality. I would certainly welcome a law that moves the point at which rights are recognized back as far as the 6th month (or whenever the fetus is capable of survival outside the womb), since it is better than only recognizing rights at birth. Yes, the pro-life movement will continue to fight for rigths at conception, but it will become more of an uphill battle as recognition is given at what more of us see at a reasonable point.
And the best thing that both the pro-life and pro-choice supporters could do to help the situation is to push for more responsible practices and better education on the subjects of sex, pregnancy, and prevention. If we could virtually eliminate the demand for abortion, perhaps we wouldn't need to have this argument.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 8:38am
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
- Date Edited:
2/6/02 8:55am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
There will always be situations in which abortion is deemed necessary. In addition, I think the issue of defining individuality isn't as complex as the pro-life and pro-choice movements are struggling to make it. Think about it... what does it mean to be an individual?
I already stated in a previous post that just because something has the potential to become an individual doesn't mean it IS an individual at that particular point in time. What is an individual (in the biological sense) if not one who is capable of existing independent of any systematic/organic ties to the parent? We are talking about a life having rights independent of its parent, are we not? So, what else is relevant other than the biological/physiological definition of independence?
The burden of proof as to when a fetus can be considered independent, (not just "capable" of independence at vaguely somewhere in the near future), and therefore be entitled to individual rights, rests on those who want the public at large to accept that definition.
And the best thing that both the pro-life and pro-choice supporters could do to help the situation is to push for more responsible practices and better education on the subjects of sex, pregnancy, and prevention. If we could virtually eliminate the demand for abortion, perhaps we wouldn't need to have this argument.
Well said, womberty!
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StarFire
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 9:37am
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
You're starting to fudge the terms "individual" and "independent", Darth_SnowDog. They mean distinctly different things.
I already stated in a previous post that just because something has the potential to become an individual doesn't mean it IS an individual at that particular point in time.
I agree.
What is an individual (in the biological sense) if not one who is capable of existing independent of any systematic/organic ties to the parent?
Now you're making up a definition to match your argument 
Individual: Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.
Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
A single animal or plant as distinguished from a species, community, or group.
A person.
We are talking about a life having rights independent of its parent, are we not?
Sneaky you are
We're really talking about whether a fetus is a person (i.e., an individual of the human species).
womberty: And the best thing that both the pro-life and pro-choice supporters could do to help the situation is to push for more responsible practices and better education on the subjects of sex, pregnancy, and prevention. If we could virtually eliminate the demand for abortion, perhaps we wouldn't need to have this argument.
True, true . . . but I'd rather we have this debate anyway. No one ever became a better person for not defining these issues.
-----signature-----
"Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
No blasters!
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 10:15am
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
|
No, I do not think that a fetus is a person. And yes, I think this is a backdoor attempt to get what the anti choice people have never been able to get any other way.
-----signature-----
If you're going through Hell, keep going.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 10:36am
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
No, I do not think that a fetus is a person.
Give me your definition of "fetus". Is it a "fetus" all the way up until birth? (Meaning that it only becomes a person when it is born?)
And yes, I think this is a backdoor attempt to get what the anti choice people have never been able to get any other way.
If you call me anti-choice, can I call you anti-life?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 11:47am
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
pro-choice vs. pro-life seem to be labels bent on delineating the opposing sides in such a fashion that we argue oranges vs. apples.
When we disagree as to the meaning of life, there's no point in calling one movement pro-life and one movement anti-life. In addition, pro-choicers see pro-lifers as anti-choice because pro-lifers appear to be against, if I'm not mistaken, people being allowed to choose for themselves whether or not to have an abortion.
Now, I'm not saying I'm taking sides with either group's political agenda/beliefs, but how is it that you can call pro-choicers "anti-life"? They don't go around advocating what they consider to be murder... they aren't going around preaching support of serial killers and genocide. They aren't opposed to life, they are opposed to anti-abortion legislation... opposed to not having a choice in the matter.
Pro-lifers aren't in support of all life, either. They certainly put human life above other forms of life. What about murdering abortion doctors? They aren't necessarily proponents of all life, and don't actively seek to preserve life in all its forms. They do, however, seek to limit an individuals choice by supporting nationwide legislation banning abortions.
I'd venture to say that pro-choicers are more consistently in favor of preserving choices than pro-lifers consistently favor the preservation of life.
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 12:18pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
Now, I'm not saying I'm taking sides with either group's political agenda/beliefs, but how is it that you can call pro-choicers "anti-life"?
I was simply trying to make a point: I don't think it's necessary to start calling people names. Call me "pro-life" or "anti-abortion"; those are what I call myself. I don't call pro-choice people murderers; not only are they not the ones performing abortions, but I completely understand that they do not yet see abortion as murder.
In addition, pro-choicers see pro-lifers as anti-choice because pro-lifers appear to be against, if I'm not mistaken, people being allowed to choose for themselves whether or not to have an abortion.
I'm all for a woman's right to choose whether or not to become pregnant, and for the same right for men. I'm just against abortion because I don't think it should, legally, be offered as a choice.
Does that make me anti-choice? How about anti-abortion-as-a-choice?
They certainly put human life above other forms of life. What about murdering abortion doctors?
That is one of the most hypocritical things a pro-life activist can do. We don't need to terrorize to promote our cause; in fact, it does more harm than good, because it groups the rest of us in with these extremists and gives us all a bad image.
They do, however, seek to limit an individuals choice by supporting nationwide legislation banning abortions.
Just as our current laws limit your choices to steal, kill, etc. Yes, I understand why the label "anti-choice" is being applied. It just makes it sound like we have now resorted to name-calling to make the other side look worse than ours. I will respect opponents of anti-abortion legislation and call them pro-choice. I am asking for the same level of respect in return.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StarFire
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 12:20pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read your post, Darth_SnowDog, so I read it again. Apparently, we agree on something! 
The terms pro-choice and pro-life are inaccurate and outdated. Neither conveys the TRUE point of debate, though I dare say Pro-Life is the more innacurate of the two when taken at face value.
Since the crux of the debate is whether a fetus is a human being, I think we should come up with new terms, just for the sake of clearing away some of the criss-cross "anti-this, anti-that" arguments.
The most accurate terms I can come up with (while still maintaining brevity) would be "pro-fetus" and "anti-fetus", though both are still admittedly lacking. And I don't like either of'em. I hate them, in fact 
Any ideas?
-----signature-----
"Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Sligty_Worride
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 1:36pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
|
What if I punch a woman in the stomach when she is 6 weeks preganant? AM I GUILTY OF MURDER? YES! But she would have the right to choose to kill the baby?
-----signature-----
If you have diabetes, you check your blood sugar, you check it often, there's no reason not to.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
2/6/02 1:50pm
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
That's because we don't want people punching women and making them to lose their wanted pregnancies. It's murder because it is a serious violation of her body and her future child's life, since she has made the decision to carry the child to term.
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Force of Nature
Registered:
Nov '99
|
Date Posted:
2/7/02 1:54am
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
|
Well, it isn't murder here (UK). If the woman dies, it could be manslaughter or, more likely, culpable homicide because, guess what, you're not supposed to go around punching people in the stomach. If she miscarries, it would probably be considered actual, or possibly grievous, bodily harm.
-----signature-----
I didn't actually come here to free slaves.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
2/7/02 6:56am
Subject:
RE: Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)
|
If the argument is that a fetus is a human being... biologically speaking it could be argued both ways.
The reason for this is because of genetics. There is a sequence of genes that triggers specific areas of development that help define at different stages of fetal growth the features that eventually make the fetus distinctively a member of Homo sapiens.
Prior to the sequential triggering of "feature" genes that ensure that the eye develops into a human eye, the heart develops into a human four-chambered heart, the genitals develop into human male or female genitals, etc... the fetus is almost indistinguishable from other mammalian fetuses. In fact, at that stage, except for the obvious fact that the fetus is being carried in a human mother... if the fetus were compared side-by-side with other mammalian fetuses, empirical observation would show that the two were indistinguishable for a period of time.
Only genetic analysis reveals the distinctiveness early on. So, scientists could argue that the fetus is a human being genetically from the point of conception... but not physically a human being until all of its systems have formed.
The issue is obviously not that black and white, because there is no precise point at which a fetus physically becomes a human being, with all the physiological/biological characteristics of a human being.
However, regardless of when a fetus can be considered a human being or "child", I still contend that individual rights can not be granted to a child until that child is physiologically an individual... capable of surviving without intersystematic dependence on the mother. Until such a time, the parent has rights over its body and the fetus which is a fully-dependent component of the mother's body.
Consider an adult, for a moment... an adult human being is comprised of numerous systems. However, if only the circulatory or nervous systems are "disconnected"... clinical death will occur. Similarly, the circulatory, digestive and parts of the nervous system of a fetus are dependent entirely on the parent as their source of "power". If that source of power is cut off, all of the fetus' other systems will fail and the fetus will cease to exist unless that fetus is far along enough in its development to survive physical separation from the mother. In addition, if the mother were to die and the fetus were still dependent on the mother, the fetus would die as well.
Unless you're willing to reclassify the human fetus as a parasitic organism, then the fetus is not capable of being given its own set of rights apart from those of the parent when it is, for all intents and purposes, a wholly-dependent component of the parent.
All that being said, though, the surest way to minimize the abuse of abortion is not through anti-abortion legislation, but educational awareness of all alternatives to abortion. There again, there's only so much we can do as a society to educate... the real responsibility of education, especially where "family values" are concerned, begins at home.
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
