pro-life or pro-choice?

Don't misunderstand me - I think it matters too. My only point was that it seems from the pro-choice side that even if you could determine for sure that a fetus was a person, abortion would still be permissible bsaed on the rights of the mother to privacy. I'm basing that on the fact that dogs certainly aren't human, but we still have laws against killing them, so saying a fetus isn't really a person isn't enough to justify abortion - there must be another compelling factor to deprive a fetus of viability.

The compelling factor for those against abortion restrictions seems to be not that the fetus is not yet a human being as defined in the Constitution, but rather that the biological privacy rights of the mother supersede any rights we might afford a fetus under the law. Still correct?

So, if a living baby can't live without it's mother's milk, does the government have the right to force the mother to nurse it?

 

So, if a living baby can't live without it's mother's milk, does the government have the right to force the mother to nurse it?

Do they force you to pay your taxes?
I'm not saying that they have the right to force the mother to nurse her child, but rather that they have the obligation to hold the mother responsible if the child suffers from some negligence on her part.

 

Just to clarify: what you saying about privacy rights isn't directed at someone like me right? Because I am for restrictions after the time which I believe the fetus to be constitutionally protected under the law(40 days roughly)?


Starfire: Ah yeah well I have to question both sides because I'm sitting here on the middle of the fence so to speak. Not quite sure what to think about the legality of abortion and trying to balance my religious views and what I believe to be constitutional. Despite what most people say these debates actually have changed my opinions. And of course I don't think legislating my religious views is constitutional because then we'd all be vegetarians

 

StarFire,
"It would die without nutrition which can only be provided by other humans."
Other humans. You are missing the point, my point is the fetus is solely and completely dependent on the mother.

"It resides in her, but she has no control--voluntary or involuntary--over it. It is a completely seperate, though still dependent, entity."
She has complete control over it, everything the mother intakes, the baby intakes. That's why mother's have to watch their diets when they are pregnant.

Slade,
"It would seem that the government couldn't force the woman to continue feeding the baby, since its her body - is this correct?"
Once the baby is born - although I don't mind the 7 month argument - it has its individual rights. At which point of the mother stopped feeding the baby and prevented it from getting any kind of nourishment, that would be murder. I don't think the two have much to do with each other.

Cailina,
"For me, it is the defining point on when I believe that abortion can be Constitutionally outlawed."
But what if the government decides abortions are legal? Are you perfectly happy with the inevitable situation:

- Poor women who probable would suffer most from having an unwanted child, whose lives would be irrepairably(sp?) damaged by having a child can not avoid to fly to a country where abortion is legal. Instead, they go to a dark alley and use a coat hanger.
- The wealthy, who unlike the previously mentioned mothers, would be able to provide for an unwanted child but simply do not want to have that child for some other reason buy a plane ticket to Puerto Rico. Have an abortion, come back and live a merry life.

That is the harsh reality.

 

"StarFire,
'It would die without nutrition which can only be provided by other humans."
Other humans. You are missing the point, my point is the fetus is solely and completely dependent on the mother.
[...]
Slade,
'It would seem that the government couldn't force the woman to continue feeding the baby, since its her body - is this correct?'
Once the baby is born - although I don't mind the 7 month argument - it has its individual rights. At which point of the mother stopped feeing the baby and prevented it from getting any kind of nourishment, that would be murder. I don't think the two have much to do with each other. "

The two have very much to do with each other as can be seen from your first comment. In both instances the fetus/baby is solely and completely dependent on the mother.

And I said I believe that after 40 days(when brain activity begins) a fetus can be considered a person under the constitution and the law. Therefor I believe that abortions can be outlawed because they take away the fetus/child's right to life. And yes I know about back-alley coat-hanger abortions however, don't forget that the women does have 40 days to get a safe, legal, abortion.


On a different but related note: I am debating between keeping my stance at personhood begins at 40 days and changing it to personhood begins when the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb. Someone posted when that was(roughly) earlier but I don't remember, I'd have to go check. That would also allow more time for safe, legal abortions, thus preventing more coat-hanger abortions.

 

Other humans. You are missing the point, my point is the fetus is solely and completely dependent on the mother.

It's an arbitrary distinction which has no bearing on whether the fetus is a person. If you're arguing that a fetus becomes a person when it begins depending on more than one person, well, then it becomes SUPER arbitrary.

She has complete control over it, everything the mother intakes, the baby intakes. That's why mother's have to watch their diets when they are pregnant.

That's not control. It is dependent on her. The baby intakes what she takes. She holds it's life in her (figuratively speaking) hands, but she cannot control it. She can't make it move, through either voluntary or involuntary muscular action. "It" is a distinct entity.

But what if the government decides abortions are legal? Are you perfectly happy with the inevitable situation:

- Poor women who probable would suffer most from having an unwanted child, whose lives would be irrepairably(sp?) damaged by having a child can not avoid to fly to a country where abortion is legal. Instead, they go to a dark alley and use a coat hanger.
- The wealthy, who unlike the previously mentioned mothers, would be able to provide for an unwanted child but simply do not want to have that child for some other reason buy a plane ticket to Puerto Rico. Have an abortion, come back and live a merry life.

That is the harsh reality.

You can't justify abortion because some people are going to be doing it anyway.

 

TPM,

Wait a second. Is it that the fetus is less than 7 months old, or is it because the fetus is totally physically dependent upon the mother? It makes an important difference. Why are you saying it's murder if the mother doesn't feed the born child, but not if she removes it from her body before it's born? It seems like in both cases the government would be forcing behavior with regard to her body, which, as you say, would be unconstitutional, regardless of whether the fetus or baby can be considered human at the time.

 

Cailina,
In an ideal world, the morning after pill would be completely accepted and that would end all abortion debates. Hopefully it will end up that way.

As for the 7 months thing - the SC decided that at that point the baby could survive out of the womb and therefore its rights counted then. I still don't think its rights take precedence over the right to control one's body. But an abortion at that stage as far as I know is too dangerous anyway.

 

TPM, let's keep this simple:

Abortion post-7 months: acceptable or unacceptable?

Abortion pre-7 months: acceptable or unacceptable?

I know what the Supreme Court thinks - what do you think?

If you have the same answer to both of these questions, we're back to the mother's milk thing. If you have different answers, 7 months is the defining factor and I'd like to know why - babies can survive outside the womb way before then with proper care (granted under the best of circumstances but that still doesn't make 7 months any less arbitrary).

In case you hadn't guessed, my primary frustration with the abortion debate is that neither side can articulate their views clearly. It's gotten way to emotional and subjective. We need to set a reasonable criteria for behavior and live by it.

 

Wow... I wish I was able to post threads that grew this big!!

I doubt that this will ever be resolved or concluded because IMHO it all comes down to the simple question of whether or not a feotus constitutes an individual. Reams could be written about this and I doubt that either side's views would change a great deal.

I would advise keeping away from complex legal discussions. We all know what the legal situation is anyway and there's really no reason to trawl through every relevant Supreme Court judgement etc.

 

Ah but DS we appear to have learned that it's not relevant whether the fetus is an individual. As we've said, even dogs have the right not to be killed, regardless of their status as citizens. Something else seems to be the compelling factor - I'm dying for someone to just spell out what they think that factor is. I've heard dependency on the mother, I've heard 7 months, I've heard brain waves - which is it and does it hold up to scrutiny?

 

Frank, it's "fetal viabilbity" that holds up to legal scrutiny and it's that standard that I support.

"The compelling factor for those against abortion restrictions seems to be not that the fetus is not yet a human being as defined in the Constitution, but rather that the biological privacy rights of the mother supersede any rights we might afford a fetus under the law. Still correct?"

Both of these factors weigh in. The unborn have no legal standing and never have until "fetal viability", the point at which a baby could survive outside the mother's body, kicks in. TPM's point, which has been overlooked is that while after birth a baby is dependent upon *somebody* for survival, before viability the fetus is dependent upon only one person on the planet.

Furthermore, you cannot have two entities sharing one body, each with equal rights. One's rights will inevitably supercede the other and since we are all in agreement that a grown female *is* a person, that control rests with her.

Finally, it is not a mere matter of privacy that the Supreme Court granted the right to a safe and legal abortion to women. (A right they had for centuries.) The Court recognized that pregnancy is a state not without perils and possible complications. Maternity death is greater than death due to elective abortion. Additionally, there are other matters to consider. The status of the family, the financial considerations, the lifelong commitment required (please don't bring up adoption since that is a separate issue to be dealt with *after* one decides whether to continue a pregnancy or not)...

All of these facotrs weighed into the Roe decision. A decision that still stands.

Who here has read the opinions of the court, or the history leading up to Roe?

 

TPM's point, which has been overlooked is that while after birth a baby is dependent upon *somebody* for survival, before viability the fetus is dependent upon only one person on the planet.

First, it hasn't been overlooked, and second: Are you seriously saying that you believe someone's individuality depends on the arbitrary number of people they depend on for nutrition and care?

Furthermore, you cannot have two entities sharing one body, each with equal rights.

Why not? If the woman chooses to get pregnant (or if she takes risks which could cause her to become so) what right does she later have to casually dismiss the results of her actions and trample on someone's rights in the doing?

One's rights will inevitably supercede the other and since we are all in agreement that a grown female *is* a person, that control rests with her.

If you're talking about the right to privacy, that's baloney. People can't (legally) kill other people in the privacy of their homes or anywhere, so why should they be allowed to kill other people, period?

Who here has read the opinions of the court, or the history leading up to Roe?

I skimmed over it . . . and have no great zeal to read the whole thing again. Please don't make me

 

Are you seriously saying that you believe someone's individuality depends on the arbitrary number of people they depend on for nutrition and care?

The mother's situation and condition is unique and cannot adequately be compared to anything else. And I believe I've already stated what constitutes individuality to me, but I will put it here in short form again:

A clump of human cells that will one day be a human being does not a person make.

(Furthermore, you cannot have two entities sharing one body, each with equal rights.)

"Why not? If the woman chooses to get pregnant (or if she takes risks which could cause her to become so) what right does she later have to casually dismiss the results of her actions and trample on someone's rights in the doing?"

Because she's not trampling on someone else's rights. Non viable fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses have no legal rights, nor do I feel they have a moral one which outranks the woman's.

(One's rights will inevitably supercede the other and since we are all in agreement that a grown female *is* a person, that control rests with her)

"If you're talking about the right to privacy, that's baloney. People can't (legally) kill other people in the privacy of their homes or anywhere, so why should they be allowed to kill other people, period?"

No, I'm not, but I will reiterate my position if you wish it later, when I have more time. (I've already stated numerous times in this thread that I do not consider embryos "people". So that is why it's clearly not the same.)

"Who here has read the opinions of the court, or the history leading up to Roe?"

I'm just curious on this point.

 

"Abortion post-7 months: acceptable or unacceptable?

Abortion pre-7 months: acceptable or unacceptable?"
Legally, both should be acceptable. But I wouldn't recommend an abortion after 7 months b/c I've been told its dangerous.

 

Abortion past 7 months: unacceptable unless extenuating circumstances exist.

Besides, over 99% of all abortions take place before this cutoff date anyway, so it really affects only a miniscule number of American women.

89% of all abortions in the US take place during the first 90 days. That number would be *higher* if abortion were not already a burdensome procedure for many US women. The anti-choice activists have logically concluded that if they can't get the courts to outlaw abortion, they'll make it a chore to get. So...

Only 14% of US counties have abortion providers. Most teaching hospitals do not teach the procedure. Most insurance companies do not cover elective abortions and only recently was RU-486 made available to American women due to President Clinton's action.

Those who object to later abortions really have the anti-choice activists to thank for all of this. The above practices have not stopped abortions from being obtained. (Numbers have been fairly constant over the years after spiking in the early 70s) It is only delaying the inevitable.

 

OK now we've got two separate arguments. I hate to be methodical about this but I'm not interested in pontifications and histories, but rather a reasoned argument. Please continue to answer specifically.

TPM - you say both before 7 months and after 7 months are legally acceptable. Is the compelling factor in not restricting abortion rights:

1) that the fetus is entirely biologically dependent upon one single person (the mother), or

2) the proximity of the two creatures (meaning one lives inside the other)?

Don't say both - it's one or the other. If it's 1 then the mother's milk hypothetical(the baby requires special nutrients found only in the breast milk of its own mother) I brought up earlier is perfectly acceptable, not negligent murder.


Noblasters,

What specifically makes 7 months different from 6 1/2? If its arbitrary or a best guess that's okay, we just need to be honest about it. "That the Supreme Court says so" is not sufficient - why do they say so?

I promise, if folks answer my questions I'll answer any that you have, but this is how rational debates progress so please answer the questions.

 

Frank, there is no "magic number" on this and I will not be drawn into naming one.

Medically speaking, fetal viability depends upon many factors far too numerous to mention here. Suffice to say, just as there is a wide range of what is considered "normal development" in children, so too is there a range (not so wide) on when a fetus is able to survive outside the womb.

Though you do not like my answer of referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe, it will have to stand. In matters of law there must be one standard that governs all those affected. In Roe, the Court looked at all the scientific evidence presented to them and had to pick a date. Though some premature babies may, through extraordinary medical hurdles, be able to survive outside the womb as early as 6 and a half months, others will not survive at even 7 and a half months. Would you prefer that the standard be set *back*?

Additionally, I do not understand the lack of desire to understand or even know history. How can one make a fully formed opinion on something as crucial as this and not care to understand how we got here today?

 

NB,

It wasn't me that brought the concept of a cutoff date into the discussion and I'm not trying to draw anyone into anything. If I understand you correctly you're saying that the Court determined that it would make this decision based on fetal viability, and that the 7 month figure is a best guess on the part of the Court based on the scientific evidence available at the time. Assuming I have this correct, I have two follow-up questions:

1) How serious, on a scale of 1-10, would it be in your opinion to make a mistake in this regard. In other words, based on the general rule, an individual fetus is deemed not viable and is aborted, while more investigation into this specific case would have proven that the fetus could in fact have survived. How serious is that?

2) Based on the fact that scientific evidence is the determining factor, is the Court obligated to adjust the rule as the capabilities of science improve? What I mean to say is, at the time, it was determined that a baby could survive at roughly 7 months, with proper yet not extreme measures taken to provide for it. What if, in the future, it only took an injection and a warm bed to keep a 5-month fetus growing and healthy outside the womb? Is the Court obligated to allow for that or does the 7 month figure transcend advances in science?

And since you asked, I know the Supreme Court is the law of the land, but actually, it doesn't "have to stand" by any stretch. I'm not even challenging it, I just want some clarification on people's views. All I'm asking is that if someone has an opinion they don't use the Supreme Court's ruling as evidence that they're right. If you agree with the ruling, great, I don't think you're a bad or stupid person, just explain why.

And it isn't that I don't care about history. If history plays a part in the argument, just explain how. I only made that statement because I was having trouble getting unembellished answers to my questions.

 

"7 month figure is a best guess on the part of the Court based on the scientific evidence available at the time."

Yes, that is so. And while advances in medicine have given premature babies a greater chance of survival, it is still on such an extreme range that at this point I do not think the 7 month cutoff date should be revisited.

"How serious, on a scale of 1-10, would it be in your opinion to make a mistake in this regard. In other words, based on the general rule, an individual fetus is deemed not viable and is aborted, while more investigation into this specific case would have proven that the fetus could in fact have survived. How serious is that?"

I am not going to assign a numerical value to such an opinion since it is a simplistic response to a complex question. What you are suggesting, however, is not to my knowledge currently feasable. I do not think medical science has advanced to the point where anyone can determine with pinpoint accuracy whether a specific fetus can survive at "X" weeks. So. In practical terms what does that leave us with? A standard that was drawn into play some years ago and still stands. I happen to agree with that standard since the reality is that we must have one. Do you know of a foolproof method to determine fetal viability before birth?

"Based on the fact that scientific evidence is the determining factor, is the Court obligated to adjust the rule as the capabilities of science improve? What I mean to say is, at the time, it was determined that a baby could survive at roughly 7 months, with proper yet not extreme measures taken to provide for it. What if, in the future, it only took an injection and a warm bed to keep a 5-month fetus growing and healthy outside the womb?"

Yes, I think so, providing at the same time that medical science has also advanced to the point that the fetus can be somehow drawn from the woman's body without a C-section being performed. WIll such a thing ever be possible? I've no idea since many of the things we take absolutely for granted today would have been unthinkable 500 years ago.

"Is the Court obligated to allow for that or does the 7 month figure transcend advances in science?"

It's an interesting question and I happen to agree. At any rate, should the benchmark ever be lowered to 6 months, very few elective abortions will be affected, since the vast majority occur well before that.

edit for clarity:

I personally think that by the time medical science can keep fetuses 16 weeks along alive, there will be an easier and cheaper way of getting still earlier abortions...

 

NB,

I don't have a foolproof method, nor do I think one is over the horizon. But here's an analogy, and please point out where, if at all, this goes wrong...

I'm assuming where we are now is agreeing that a viable fetus, one that could live outside the womb, would be entitled to full Constitutional rights, as a citizen of this country. Under this argument, if the fetus is viable, the mother's privacy rights are not relevant. Stop me if I'm incorrect.

It is, however, an impractical proposition to determine that viability as a certainty. We therefore do the best we can. To answer my own question therefore, I believe that it would be extremely serious to make a mistake in this regard. Akin, perhaps, to sending an innocent defendant to the electric chair. Guily people might deserve the chair, but innocent people are entitled not to be killed, but rather must be protected. The fact that we didn't know a fetus wasn't viable doesn't make it so, and if I understand the argument correctly, in that case, we just accidentally killed a citizen of the United States. (Once again, stop me if I'm wrong.)

Our criminal justice system is also an imperfect process, and mistakes are sometimes made, which is unavoidable. Yet each individual defendant, innocent or guilty, is entitled to an enthusiastic defense, so that if they are innocent, all measures can be taken to protect them against an unjust conviction. Unborn fetuses have no such privilege under the law - we rely on our "best guess", and in lots of cases we do it out of convenience.

I don't think proponents of abortion rights are bad people. I know there are all sorts of issues out there that must be taken into account. But it is my opinion that the current state of affairs is inadequate. Mistakes fall through the cracks, in which case I would think the fetus should have some representation, but they don't. The best they have are anti-abortion lobbyists, all of whom are branded sexists and lumped in the worst of the conservative right. The situation appears inadequate.

 

Slade,
Those things don't really affect my opinion. My opinion is based upon the other things I've previously mentioned. I'm just trying to deal with other people's reasoning, which is based more upon the 'it's murder' claim.

 

TPM,

Okay...you're saying that even if my argument is correct, it doesn't affect your opinion. Considering that my argument above is essentially that if viability is a test, uncertainty about that viability is potentially dangerous, I assume that you're saying, unlike No Blasters, that viability is not a relevant test. For the sake of my discussion with you, I'll let that stand, and repeat my question to you from a few posts ago, which still hasn't been addressed:

You say abortions both before 7 months and after 7 months are legally acceptable. Is the compelling factor in not restricting abortion rights:

1) that the fetus is entirely biologically dependent upon one single person (the mother), or

2) the proximity of the two creatures (meaning one lives inside the other)?

Don't say both - it's one or the other. If it's 1 then the hypothetical about the mother refusing to nurse its baby even though the baby requires special nutrients found only in the breast milk of its own mother to survive is just as acceptable as an abortion - or tell me why it's different.

 

FS: "Is the compelling factor in not restricting abortion rights:

1) that the fetus is entirely biologically dependent upon one single person (the mother), or

2) the proximity of the two creatures (meaning one lives inside the other)?

Don't say both - it's one or the other."

Since you did say NOT restricting abortion rights, my answer is 2). As you already stated, it's an impractical proposition to determine the viability of any given late-term foetus as a certainty. Therefore if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, it is only logical to safeguard the individual whose 'viability' can be more reliably assessed.

In the UK, a time limit of 24 weeks was added to the Abortion Act in 1990, as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA). The key argument made was that at this point in gestation it becomes possible for a foetus to be kept alive outside of the womb. Previously, the upper time limit had been 28 weeks, which had been seen as the time at which a child would have a reasonable chance of survival if born alive.

I don't have the Scottish figures readily to hand but in England and Wales, in 1999, 89% of abortions were performed before 13 weeks gestation, 10% at 13-19 weeks and only 1% at 20 weeks or later.

Incidentally, prior to 1990, in Scotland, unlike England and Wales, there was no time limit for abortion in existing law - the 1929 Infant Life Preservation Act (from which a time limit of 28 weeks was inferred, prior to the HFEA) didn't apply here. However, the number of late-term abortions didn't suddenly decrease in Scotland after 1990, which suggests to me the law isn't the limiting factor. Abortions after 24 weeks are performed only in extreme circumstances (something of the order of 0.0005% of all abortions) and it is, IMO, doubtful if advances in foetal physiology or the development of foetal medicine and neonatal intensive care would affect such cases.

 

FoN says: "I don't have the Scottish figures readily to hand but in England and Wales, in 1999, 89% of abortions were performed before 13 weeks gestation, 10% at 13-19 weeks and only 1% at 20 weeks or later."

Those are almost the same percentages as the US. What does it suggest?

That women know very quickly whether they wish to be pregnant or not, therefore they endeavour to abort as quickly as possible. What, you actually think that women hem and haw around, unable to make up their minds?

Furthermore, your rationalization above is a whole lot of "if this, then that" which is entirely too much speculation and supposition. We already know that most abortions take place well before there's any question of viability. Most, almost 9 out of 10, abortions occur before the 12th week of pregnancy. You're surely not suggesting that there is currently any chance at all of such a entity surviving outside the womb?

"It is, however, an impractical proposition to determine that viability as a certainty."

It is not possible for a fetus, 12 weeks or earlier along in development to survive outside the womb. This is a certainty.

It is not possible. That is an ironclad certainty.

Now. Since you seem focused on the possible rights of those less than 1% of fetuses who are aborted, would you not agree that it would be better to have earlier abortions?