What does an abortion do?

[Az]

Poll question: What does an abortion do?

Ok, we balance the right to an abortion on the rights of a woman to control her own body. But the arguments we face are typically based on the results of what an abortion does to the fetus/baby. We need to better understand our own positions regarding this issue in order to be better prepared to face our opponents. Please keep the flames to a minimum.

[trumad]

1. Shouldn't there be "Time in womb" associated with this poll?

On edt.... No offense, but the more I study your poll the more I feel that it's a pretty dumb ass poll because of it's ambiguity.

[Az]

2. I tried to include those concepts

The sentient and ensoulment at first breath attempt to touch on that issue. But its difficult to put all the possible iterations in the limited number of poll selections.

[Guaranteed]

3. It doesn't matter if it's a human or a person or whatever.

The best pro-choice argument states that the woman has the right to detach this fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it from her body because it is HER body.

Let's say it's a baby. Doesn't matter. If another human being is attached to your body and feeding off of you in order to keep itself alive, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to detach it from your body, whether you made an agreement beforehand to make the attachment, or are "responsible" for the being's existence, or whatever. The circumstances just do not matter. The woman does not have to have it attached to her body.

THEN, after that argument, you can still fall back on the idea that it may or may not be a person at all.

[Az]

5. Agreed, but

The arguments we face from the right are not from the same understanding. They are focused on the morality of the action in regards to the fetus. Unless we simply wish to remain locked in a slowly eroding stance with the right we need to assail this position. Understanding ourselves comes first and then we can discern a path to take the battle to the right.

[Guaranteed]

9. That's precisely why we need to redefine the argument

in the terms I just outlined above.

Give them, hypothetically, that it's a baby, then show them it doesn't matter. Personal autonomy. Nobody should ever be forced to have another being attached to them.

Then fall back on the "it's not a baby" argument. That should be more than enough.

[Az]

14. See the post below

The I use a story post.

[redqueen]

177. 'Detach' is not the same thing as 'abort'

'Detaching' a viable fetus could mean the woman should have the baby and give it up for adoption.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Other: Gives poor people a reason to vote Republican. eom

[JuniperLea]

6. i'm on the fence

abortion IS murder... but i'll be damned if the government is going to tell me what to do with my body! i don't think abortion is the issue, it's control.

i've carried life three times and bore three children. the lives were viable since conception if left alone.

there is nothing you can tell me to make me believe otherwise.

some people should not be parents, and aborting (murdering) a baby is damn well proof of that. if you cared enough for human life, you would carry it to term and put the child up for adoption. don't tell me about circumstances either.

i've said my piece and counted to three:)

[Guaranteed]

11. It's not murder.

Detaching something that's feeding off of your body for it's life is not murder.

[JuniperLea]

17. aren't you glad your mother wasn't that selfish?

n/t

[Guaranteed]

19. She was an excellent woman, yes,

to do that for me. :)

[frankly_fedup2]

49. I do not think it has anything to do with selfishness. My mother

and father "planned" and were trying to get pregnant. They wanted to have another baby. I had an older sister. After me, my mother got pregnant again, and it was a boy. She lost that baby in the last trimester when she was 7 or 8 months. She said there was nothing different from that pregnancy and the pregnancies she had with me and my sister. However, the nuns told her the child would have lived a horrible life due to deformities and birth defects. My mother never saw him.

Do you think that God performed this abortion? After all, it was not due to anything my mother did, and she wanted this baby.

So miscarriages could be considered abortions by God. Hmmm, never really thought of it that way. Does anyone else think of it that way?

[JuniperLea]

292. yes

but i thought in terms of 'nature' instead of god.

[truthspeaker]

75. I don't know that my mother didn't have an abortion.

And it's none of my business if she did.

[Az]

13. I use a story

There is this famous violinist that has a rare blood disorder. He needs a nine month transfusion or he will die. You let it slip in a conversation that you happen to have just the right blood type for this procedure. You go to a party and while drinking with some odd medical person pass out. You wake to find yourself hooked up to the musician. You are told that he needs to stay connected for 9 months. Disconnecting from him is a certain death sentence.

Do you have the right to walk away. This is most certainly a fully functioning human being. Walking away will most certainly kill him. But he does not have the right to your body. Even if you did tell everyone that you were the perfect candidate for the procedure. Its your body. It cannot be enslaved to the will of another.

[Guaranteed]

15. That's the one.

;)

[JuniperLea]

25. not the same thing

you didn't willingly have unprotected sex and create the violinist. nor are you his only alternative. you are not responsible for his life as you are for an unborn child's.

[Az]

26. You willingly spread information

And you sat down with an odd medical type. You knew the risks.

[Guaranteed]

29. So let's say you enter into an agreement...

a CONTRACTUAL agreement, with the violinist, to have him attached to your body for nine months. Don't you, even then, have the right to detach the violinist from your body?

Or, how about this one: Let's say it's your own baby. A literal baby, that's already been born. Let's say the doctor comes along and says that in order for the baby to live, you (and ONLY you can do this because of genetics) are going to have to be attached to it for another nine months. **Legally,** should you HAVE to do it? That's not to ask what's the RIGHT thing to do in that situation- but should you be legally FORCED to do it? No.

Why should ANYONE, no matter what, HAVE to be attached to another being for nine months? It seems to me that, whether or not through your actions the being exists, there is nothing that morally OBLIGATES a person to make that kind of sacrifice.

[sangha]

31. Under the law, you can NOT be forced to fulfill a contract

You can be sanctioned or held liable for your failure to fulfill your obligations, but no court can make you do anything that you agreed to in a contract. A court can order you to not engage in criminal or tortious activities, and they can force you to pay for failing to perform, but they can not make you perform.

[July]

39. Wow, believing the myths.

Women who have abortions "willingly have unprotected sex"?

Some are rape victims. Many use birth control. And some who DO willingly have sex, or willingly have unprotected sex, don't feel that they are responsible for the life of an "unborn child" (an oxymoron).

[smirkymonkey]

150. OH! So it's about the "Willingly Having

Unprotected Sex" that is the problem. For that, a woman must be punished. Praise the Lord!

[smirkymonkey]

151. Well, you could try a blood bank

I am sure they would have his type. There are only so many types of blood.

Besides, what if you hate violin music? You wouldn't want to do something to keep that going.

[mopinko]

24. the lives were viable since conception if left alone

wrong wrong wrong
viable only with the continued sharing of the life and body of the mother, and continued willingness and ability of the mother to do same. left ALONE it would cease to exist.

[July]

37. I've had children, too.

That alone doesn't make me (or you) "right."

You say "Abortion IS murder." That's an assertion, not a fact. That's what you believe. Many people do not believe that.

You also say "don't tell me about circumstances" and claim that having an abortion is proof that someone shouldn't be a parent. Clearly, your mind is made up. Again, many people disagree with you, including women who've had abortions AND had children. Don't tell ME that those women "should not be parents." I know them, and I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Live by your beliefs. Don't tell me to live by YOUR beliefs.

[JuniperLea]

293. this is a discussion

i'm telling my beliefs... i'm not telling anyone what to do. and if you paid attention, you would have realized that i am pro choice. i said no one is going to tell me what to do with my body. and i also said if i'd had a child who would not be well upon birth, i would have an abortion. a child born of rape would not live a healthy life with that mother who did not decide to have sex with the father.

if you had been paying attention, you would have seen that although i am pro choice, i am also pro life... my views are unique to myself, aparently. so be it.

but don't come hammering down on MY views until you've paid attention.

[gottaB]

7. a fetus is not human being until it's viable

Until then it's potentially human.

[JuniperLea]

22. define "viable"

i say it's viable since conception if left in it's proper environment. if you take a living fish from water, does it not die?

[sangha]

33. "Human being" isn't what counts. "Person" is

And a human being is NOT a "person" until it is born. This is settled law.

[Az]

34. Law does not address how people feel about things

And that is really the crux of this thread. We are in a defensive position on this issue unable to move. Our only defense is its the law and a woman's right to control her own body. The right has mobility and it presumes to have morality on its side. We need to get mobile and reclaim the morality issue if we do not wish to be sieged to death.

Telling someone its ok to kill a human being because the law is on our side will only make them want to change the law all the more. We need to keep our defenses solid while finding a way to take the fight back to the them. The abortion issue is largely responsible for the rise of the right. It continues to be their number one recruitment issue. If we do not find a way to dismantle its effectiveness we will find ourselves still in our defensive positions but buried alive and the war lost.

[sangh0]

65. Yes, people's feelings are the crux of this thread

and the fact that people's feelings about abortion do have a strong influence on how the feel about the laws which govern it makes it all the more important to explain that the law is not based on how people feel. If it did, it would be OK to summarily murder Arab-Americans in most locales.

The law is based on protecting people's rights, not their morality. That's why lying, an immoral act, is NOT a crime UNLESS the lie is told for some material gain, in which case it's the crime of fraud because it infringes on someone else's property rights.

Some people consider premarital sex immoral. If enough people felt that way, and wanted to criminalize it, would you argue that we should argue the issue on their terms, or should we acknowledge how they feel while explaining that the law is not meant enforce morality, and that policy protects THEM as much as it protects the immoral?

[Az]

72. Tactics and the long term

Rights are what our republic are all about. The idea that certain rights are inalienable is critical to this doctrince. However time and history have demonstrated that if the will of the people are not behind these rights then they may be somewhat short of inalienable.

The supporters of choice have long depended on the rights of the mother to defend their position. This has left us immobile tactically. Meanwhile the antichoice crowd has been able to run about gathering all manner of arguments, tactics, and positions. They have been very active in exploring ways to tip the scales. They have been probing our defenses and are even now beginning to pry open the cracks they have found.

Tactically speaking we are under siege. If the surrounding enemy is able to resupply and maintain the siege it will win over time. The only way to win against such a tactic is to strike out and break the siege. Sticking to the defensive stance of its a woman's right will fall if it is not supplimented by an offensive strategy to break the siege.

With no voice championing the moral basis of choice the surrounding territory will continue to fall to the right. We need to find common threads between the various inhabitants of this big tent regarding this issue and form a moral argument for choice that is not dependent on the rights of the woman. Then armed with this secondary issue we can use the combined efforts of rights and morality to break the siege and protect our rights from this assault.

[sangh0]

82. We both agree that people's feelings can affect the law

based on politics. The difference, if any, is how to deal with this reality. In that respect, I feel you are misunderstanding what I am saying here. I am NOT saying we should "stick to a defensive stance" of "it's a woman's right", and not using any offensive tactics.

I am saying we need to be on the offensive and promote the all-too-accurate idea that the law does not defend or establish morality because to do endangers morality, just as having the govt defend or establish a religion endangers that religion.

Then, we can acknowledge the reasonableness (and even accuracy) of their claims of immorality without giving grounds on the legality of abortions. Once you agree that morality should influence the laws regulating abortion, then you've destroyed the lgal basis and you've destroyed the right, transforming it into a privilige that can be revoked on the basis of the mob's passions.

The bottom line is there is not always a moral basis for an abortion, and if you make morality the principle basis for supporting an abortion, then you have abandoned your ability to defend the rights of woman to make that decision, regardless of whether or not it's the right and moral decision.

When I go shopping, I make choices, and no one forces me to make the moral choice. No one forces me to buy from moral companies. No one forces me to not buy from immoral companies. SO why should one right be limited because a minority of people want to do so? If you allow that, then ALL rights are in danger of disappearing. If rights can only be exercised if and when they are moral, then that is not a right. It's an action that subject to restrictions whose basis nothing more than majority rule.

[outinforce]

56. Then The Law Needs to be "Unsettled"

"a human being is NOT a "person" until it is born. This is settled law."

Then the law needs some unsettling.

The notion that a fetus becomes a "person" just by being born is far to restrictive of the reproductive rights of the fetus' parents.

Not only that, it is inane for the law to say that a fetus becomes a person simply by being born.

"Persons" communicated using language with each other.

Until a fetus is able to communicate using language, it makes no sense to call it a person.

And doing so denies its parents the right they ought to have -- the right to choose to abort a fetus that is not yet really a person.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

89. "Gestational Gestapo" and All That

As is frequently the case, you miss my point all together.

"Regardless of how the law defines a "person", people can still reproduce. It has no effect on an individuals ability to have children."

Well, duh.

The real question is whether, regardless of how the law defines a "person", people can choose not to reproduce.

And, of course, here the way the law defines a person makes all the difference in the world.

Because if the law defines a person as being a thing that has been born and has taken its first breath, then the parents of that thing cannot infringe upon that things's right to life.

But if the law were to define a person as being a thing that is able to communicater its thoughts using language, then parents would have the right to choose not to reproduce -- and that right not to reproduce would not end when the fetus leaves the womb, because the thing leaving the womb would have no rights that wojuld require protection. Rather, the parents' rights to choose not to reproduce (which is, after all, a very important part of reproductive freedom) would extend until the born fetus is able to communicate using langauge, and thus demonstrate that it is a "person".

"As the law stands now, a fetus is not a person, and that has done nothing to restrict a prospective parents' right to get an abortion. To the contrary, it's the basis for the right to abortion. That's why the Gestational Gestapo wants the law to recognize the fetus as a "person"."

Well, duh.

Of course, as the law stands now, a fetus (by which, I suppose that you mean a thing that has not left the womb) is not a person. But you are just incorrect when you say that, as the law stands now, the law does nothing to restrict prospective parents' right to get an abortion. As the law stands now, no parent can abort a fetus (which I define as being anything from the point fo conception to the point at which it is able to communicate its thoughts using langauge) after the fetus have left the womb. The law gives post-birth fetuses a right to life, based simply upon the fact that they have left the womb and are capable of breathing. Post-birth fetuses do not even have to breath on their own in order to enjoy "personhood".

The gestational gestapo and the post-birth gestapo have the same gola -- to define personhood in such a way as to deny potential parents their reproductive rights -- which inlcude their rights not to become parents at all.

[Az]

104. By your argument

We could choose to define personhood as anything that does not post on the internet under the name outinforce. Based on this logic it would then be completely acceptable to terminate anything that does not meat our legally established terms for personhood.

Here is the problem. The criteria you are demanding for personhood requires someone to not only have developed a fair command of language but also to have grasped some philosophy. A child could be saying "Momma milk" and you would be ready to evicerate it still.

Language and understanding the nature of existance are not the only hallmarks of a sentient person. You understanding of sentience seems to be binary. It is not an instant step from the rise of a mind to being able to parse complex ideas in a fully developed language. There are even cases on hand where children had seemed to be incapable of communicating that turned out to have developed their own language. Your criteria is far too simple minded.

[outinforce]

113. Will You PLEASE

stop mentioning sentience?!

And will you please stop saying things like "You understanding of sentience seems to be binary."

I have not, I think, expressed anything concerning my own understanding of sentience.

As I have told you -- over and over and over again -- for me, sentience is just not that important when it comes to determining whether or not a thing is or is not a person.

I would submit that a child -- or children, even -- that "developed their own langauge -- are not much different from other beings that develop what could be called a language. The important thing about langauge is that it communicates. And, in order for communication to occur, the thought or idea being communicated must be received and understood.

In the case of children who develop their own langauge, that langauge did not communicate -- you say so yourself.

[Az]

122. Then you are

completely off the map. You are welcome to your own personal crusade. You are unlikely to find many if any supporters for your position due to the simple fact that its not even close to any acceptable definition of personhood.

You are valuing an ability. Not a person. The person is there whether they are able to comminicate it to you or not. A person does not spring up into existance with the completion of the sentence "I am a person". They are present long before that. It is curious that you cannot see this.

[sangh0]

124. It's on the map

It's called murder

[outinforce]

135. Ahem.

"You are valuing an ability. Not a person. The person is there whether they are able to comminicate it to you or not. A person does not spring up into existance with the completion of the sentence "I am a person". They are present long before that. It is curious that you cannot see this."

Says you.

What do you mean when you say, "The person is there whether they are able to comminicate it to you or not."

What definition of "person" do you use to make such a statement? You lecture me that "they" are present "long before" they are able to communicate.

How much longer before?

One day?

Three weeks?

One year?

The fact is, you have no way of knowing whether they are there whether they are able to communicate or not.

I, at least, have an objectively measurable criterion by which I can judge whether a fetus has changed from fetus to person or not.

You don't have any such criterion.

All you have is something called "sentience" -- something that cannot truly be measured.

[JuniperLea]

294. jeez!

so you are saying all law is good, and all law is right?

[gottaB]

36. imo it depends on the state of medical science

At present a fetus that is separated from the womb beginning in the third trimester of pregnancy has a pretty good chance of surviving.

People are delicate creatures. Infants more so. Can it draw breath? Can it take food through its mouth? If it can draw breath on its own, I'd call it a human being. But I really don't know. Who does?

quomodo ignoras quae sit via spiritus et qua ratione conpingantur ossa in ventre praegnatis sic nescis opera Dei qui fabricator est omnium

(Ecc:11:5)

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. That's roughly the approach in Britain

Due to the advances in medical science, the limit for abortion was reduced from the 28th week of pregnancy to the 24nd week a few years ago (there is an exception for when the mother's life is threatened, or for major handicap of the foetus. There's currently a case going through the courts about an abortion done after 22 weeks due to a cleft palate - the argument being that this is not a major handicap. I think I agree it's not major).

[gottaB]

59. It's easy to want a perfect baby

harder to accept people the way they are

Ever see the movie Gattaca?

[outinforce]

53. Can It Draw A Breath? Can It Take Food?

Those are good indications of something.

But even animals can do those things.

What makes a human being a human being (or a person, if you will) is the fact that a person, unlike animals, is able to use langugage to express its thoughts and ideas.

A fetus does not really become a human being until it ia able to articulate orally the following sentence in any given language: "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water."

Before that time, it is just a fetus, and parents' reproductive rights ought to include the right to choose to abort such a fetus.

[gottaB]

64. that's commonly known as "infanticide," not abortion

While infanticide is not entirely unknown among humankind, it usually involves newborns rather than, say, preverbal toddlers.

I'm curious. Would you condone the killing of deaf mutes?

[outinforce]

90. You Say Po-Tah-To,

and I say Po-Tay-To.

Whether or not something is or is not infanticide depends, I think, on whether we are or are not talking about a person.

THe gestational gestapo would have us all believe that aborting a fetus at four or five months gestation is killing a baby -- the very definition of infanticide.

Newborns -- or even fetuses one year after having left the womb are not, as far as I am concerned, persons. They can do nothing for themselves. But more importantly, they cannot communicate their thoughts using langauge.

The law unjstly defines persons as being any fetus that has left the womb and is breathing. It is unjust because if gives a right to life to a thing that does not have all the charateristitics we normally associagte with personhood, and it does so at the expense of rights parent s ought to have -- namely the right to decide whether to reproduce or not.

I'm not quite sure why you would ask me if I would condone the killing of the deaf. Perhaps you could explain what the killing of the deaf, and my position on it has to do with this discussion.

I'm a little clearer on why you are probably asking about whether I would condone the killing of the mute, but here again, I think your question pre-supposes that the mute are incapable of expressing themselves using language.

They can and do express themsevles quite well using language.

[Az]

94. Helen Keller

It took them quite some time to bring Helen Keller to the point she could communicate much of anything. Sorry, a mind is more than just the ability to communicate its existance. If you are having trouble seeing this then .... You really don't understand do you? Lets spell it out very very succinctly.

Language is not the definitive trait of sentience. It is an advanced stage of an individual that has learned to comminicate. Individuality and everything we associate with a human being exists long before the ability to say "Hey what are you doing with that pillow" develops. There are individuals with every right to exist that never develop the ability to communicate with anyone else. Comminication is a severly inefficient means of determining whether there is a person present before you.

[outinforce]

96. If Helen Keller's

rich and wealthy (and white) parents wished to continue to let her live even though she was not a person, then fine.

That was their choice.

But why would you wish to force the choice that Helen Keller's rich and wealthy and upper-class parents made on every one else?

You keep wishing to define personhood as being somehow dependent upon some characteristic that you yourself cannot even define -- sentience.

[sangh0]

107. The right wing likes to redefine words

in the same manner you are trying to redefine the word "person"

[Az]

117. Objective vs Subjective experience

You seem to be weighting the matter on what you can experience of anothers mind. We cannot experience the direct thoughts of anothers mind. This is the difference between subjective and objective experience. You experience your mind. I cannot experience your mind. I can experience you attempting to communicate with me and take this as evidence of your minds existance. But this is not the only way I can determine the existance of your mind.

We extend to others the right to exist that we wish for ourselves. We extend these rights to entities that we reasonably suspect posess similar subjective experiences of existance as we do. The ability to communicate this existance is not a necessity. It is based on the preponderance of evidence that we have about the nature of existance. We must apply an objective set of criteria to determine if the expectation that a person exists within the entity before us.

A perfect example of this would be babies born without brains. They have sufficient brain matter to maintain some body function for a time. But they are without any higher order brain matter. They do not exist by an arguable measure as human beings. Specifically they are not being. A child that is incapable of comminicating as yet but has a functioning brain is in the act of being. This is exactly what our laws and rights protect.

[outinforce]

143. Totured "Logic"

"We extend to others the right to exist that we wish for ourselves. We extend these rights to entities that we reasonably suspect posess similar subjective experiences of existance as we do.

Do you hear yourself??

Why do you continue to insist that we extend thse rights to entities that we reasonably suspect possess similar subjective experiences of existance as we do?

Don't we reasonable suspect that dogs and cats and apes possess similar subjective expereinces of existance as we do?

And if not, why not?

Are you in favor of granting dogs, cats, and apes rights?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. Az, you know... Yogi Bear?

All these wooden signs the Ranger would put around the park? Hm?

[sangh0]

69. Animals use language too

Biologists have identified several species (birds, monkeys, etc) that use language to communicate.

[outinforce]

91. So?

What's your point?

[truthspeaker]

101. Um, not really.

Not by any accepted definition of language. Those animals (and many others, including honey bees) use sounds and/or body signals to communicate, but it's not language.

[sangh0]

109. Not true

It's not just using sounds to communicate. It has a grammer too.

[truthspeaker]

112. Got a link? I studied linguistics and I'd like to read about this

[sangh0]

125. No links

I first read about it in the NY Times Science section. The article spoke of both monkees and birds.

Another article I remember reading spoke a macaques (sp?) use of hunting tactics that would seem to require some form of communication to coordinate, but they didn't actually witness any communications in those events.

[outinforce]

137. No Links?

Why, quelle surprise!

[radwriter0555]

8. abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of birth control. The outcome is

the same whether using pills, a condom or abortion.

The event is terminated or prevented, regardless.

[JuniperLea]

10. not so true

prevention and termination are not the same thing.

[Guaranteed]

12. I do agree with that. nt

[radwriter0555]

18. The outcome is the same. Tossing morality and souls and all that stuff

is nothing more than religious rhetoric.

[JuniperLea]

20. i'm not religeous

but i am a mother. my views on abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with 'souls'. it's about babies, little human beings, loving little creatures who have no voice of their own.

but i believe no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body. and if you can bring yourself to have an abortion, you shouldn't be a parent. you are far too selfish for that position in life.

all that being said, if i knew the child i was carrying would not be a healthy, normal child, i would consider abortion for sure. but not for the selfish reasons most choose that route.

[mopinko]

32. parenting is a hard job

carrying a baby is a hard job, not to mention life threatening. lots of people can't do it. painting people who are mature, honest and self aware enough to realize that they cannot do it as selfish is moralizing at it's WORST!
morality, however, is not the salient issue here. IT IS WHO DECIDES! this is the most personal issue there is. there is no room here for dictates from washington.
repeat after me- i would not have an abortion myself, but i do not want a politician deciding for anyone. i do not want women whose pregnancies represent a threat to their life in any way to have to resort to illegal or self-induced abortions.

[Az]

35. Deciding to create a human being is one of the most important descisions

we can make. It absolutely must be a choice we willingly enter into. If for any reason we believe it may be wrong to create a human being at this juncture in our life we should take whatever steps we can to control the course of our life.

Being made to have a baby is not punishment for erronious prevention techniques. A baby must never be a forced consequence. It must be something a person decides to undertake. It must be something they are willing to undertake. Being forced to create a human being is the most reprehensible action I can concieve of.

[mopinko]

63. a heinous form

of slavery. i keep trying to find a 4-6 word phrase that expresses this clearly for a button. "no slave mothers" or something.

[shimmergal]

86. How about:

"Forced pregnancy is involuntary servitude"?

[mopinko]

100. yeah,

it's hard to make something that would be clear to both sides.

[shimmergal]

85. Nonsense!

Having an abortion has _nothing_ to do with whether a woman will be a good mother.

Let's use a little logic here. WCan you actually say, based on empirical evidence, that the approximately 1/3 of women who've had an abortion at some time are ALL unfit mothers? Do their children always grow up feeling unloved? Do their children all turn out to be anti-social criminals?

If not, you owe an apology to a large group of women.

[mopinko]

97. agree!!!!

a woman who has enough sense of herself to know when she can and cannot be a mother. many a problem pregnancy is a problem due to the MAN involved, btw. it is a matter of circumstances, in most cases, and we all know that they can change.

[JuniperLea]

295. i think it does

if a woman uses abortion as a form of birth control, just because she doesn't want to be pregnant... that is a very, very selfish person. babies and toddlers and teenagers should not be raised by selfish people. look at society...

[kimchi]

146. Mighty broad brush, there, sister.

"all that being said, if i knew the child i was carrying would not be a healthy, normal child, i would consider abortion for sure. but not for the selfish reasons most choose that route."

Of course...the rest of us are selfish, and you are....so ABOVE that. Choice is choice. No one has the right to judge another's reasons. Of course we DO anyway, but we don't have that right.

How is not wanting to take care of a disabled child any less selfish than not wanting to rear them in poverty? Other people's reasonings are really no one else's business.

[JuniperLea]

296. you read

but you don't understand....

the child would not be well, not that i would not care for an ill child. your arguments are flawed...

everyone seems to be reading into what other people say and trying to make it either black or white. i came into this discussion saying i was on the fence with the 'usual' views on this topic, yet few have an open enough mind to realize that what i'm talking about here are varying shades of gray, no black, no white.

and you call yourselves liberal?

until the world can open it's collective mind, we will continue as a society to rehash the same arguments ad nauseum.


edited one minute later for spelling...

[radwriter0555]

262. there is no diff between abortion and a birth control pill. each out come

is essentially the same. Just because a sperm met an egg and hooked up doesn't mean it's a baby or some holy moral righteous event that suddenly becamse sacred.

It's not wanted. So abortion undoes the mistake. Simple as that.

[outinforce]

284. I Agree! AND

"Just because a sperm met an egg and hooked up doesn't mean it's a baby or some holy moral righteous event that suddenly becamse sacred."

I agree.

I would also add, though, that just because a fetus leaves the womb doesn't mean it's a baby or some holy moral righteous event that suddenly becomes sacred.

It ain't a person until it can use language.

[Jack_DeLeon]

283. Wow.

thats a pretty fucked up opinion.

[DBtv]

16. Other: Creates a wedge to justify voting Fascist.

You start a fire and demand flames be kept at a minimum. Funny.

[Az]

21. If we don't peer into these places we will forever be in the dark

Liting a small fire may be necissary to see. Keeping it under control is responsibility.

[Guaranteed]

23. I'm glad you started this thread.

This needs to be done. We have to retool our pro-choice arguments. We're losing ground.

[frankly_fedup2]

27. A lot of my friends who vote Republican do so because of

the right being pro-life. However, they say we Dems are pro-abortion. I've told my friends not "pro-abortion" but pro-choice. It's not semantics because I wish no one would have an abortion; however, I feel that is up to the woman who will, if no abortion is undertaken, be responsible for this child for the rest of its life once it is born. Personally, in Genesis it even states that Adam didn't exist until he was "given the LIFE of breath" (not exact quote) and then he was alive. My friends say that they get their quote from the bible where God says, "I knew you before you were born." (not sure if exact quote).

I use to do birth and death certificates for a hospital in the State of Virginia. According to "Man's Law" (which those so-called Christians claim the Bible states that "Man's Law" is to be obeyed over God's Law (anyone know the exact book and verse???), if a child is born but does not take one breath, there is no birth certificate from the Vital Records. Now the family may go ahead and name the child, have a funeral, whatever they wish to do; however, according to the States' records, that child never existed.

For example, say the parent's last name is Smith and the child was a girl. The child was carried to full term, the mother went through labor, the infant girl was born; however, it was a stillbirth . . . the child did not take one breath. Since that child never drew one breath, according to the laws, that child never existed. The only mention of that child according to Vital Records for the state is on a report (that they get monthly from all Hospitals in the state) that calls the child "Baby girl Smith." That's it. Even if the parents insist on naming the child, Vital Records will not include that name. No birth certificate is made for the family (which really upset some of the people I had to explain this to -- which is totally understandable, but they could not understand why they could not get a birth certificate for their child), also, no death certificate is issued, nothing.

Now if the child was born and drew just one breath, that child would be issued a birth certificate, the parents could tell Vital Records the name they had for their child, and that child's birth would be on record as a live birth. The parents would then receive the child's birth certificate in a couple of weeks.

Now the laws may have changed, but I did this for over 7 years and no laws changed during that time. It has been almost 10 years since I use to work doing these reports, but that is the way the State's Law looked at it.

Also, there are hundreds of abortions done in regular hospitals every year. The antiabortion people obviously know nothing about it. They call the procedure a D&E. Most women have a D&C for excessive bleeding and for a "missed abortion." However, the physicians call it a Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E) for someone who comes in and is in the first trimester and started bleeding or have a missed abortion. I don't think there are really any planned D&E's; however, they are performed in regular hospitals.

[Az]

30. Gen 2:7

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[frankly_fedup2]

40. That's it Az. Thanks. I'm too lazy this morning. (nt)

(nt)

[GiovanniC]

61. 1 Peter 2:13-15

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

[sangha]

28. It is not a human till it is born - but that's not accurate

It is not a PERSON until it is born, and according the law, rights belong to a PERSON, and not just any form of human life. If a peel a small section of skin of my body, those cells are a form of human life, but that patch of skin is not entitled to any rights.

[frankly_fedup2]

41. Don't give them any ideas. They will come up with something . . .

to make what you do immoral.

[sangh0]

70. I don't care. Immorality isn't what the law is about

The law is about rights, an issue of no concern to the Gestational Gestapo

[Solly Mack]

44. I'm currently growing a life form in my fridge

I was going to trash it until I read your post. Now I think I'll petition the courts to adopt it so I can claim it on my taxes.

I'm thinking of calling it Rush.

[Solly Mack]

38. It stops pregnancy - that's what an abortion does.

[outinforce]

42. This Poll Is Far Too Limited

It does not include, for instance, the notion that a fetus does not become a child until it is capabale of orally expressing the following thought: "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water."

A fetus remains a fetus even after it is born until it can utter express itself.

Until that time, it is a mere blob of flesh -- a lump, if you will.

I don't see why you have excluded the possibility of expanding the laws to give parents the reproductive freedom that would include the choice to abort their fetuses after they leave the womb.

It would appear, from the way that you have constructed your poll, that you have some religious concern about "ensoulement" -- whatever that means.

We should be pushing for a Constutional Amendment to define personhood in a way that acknowledges that it is not enough simply to be born and take a breath that constitutes "personhood".

The notion that "personhood" is obtained by the simply act of being born is far too limiting on parents' reproductive rights. Parents ought to have the right to choose whether or not to reproduce right up until the fetus is able to say "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water".

[Az]

45. I tried to keep the poll within the spectrum of established concepts

As such the idea of "aborting" a child after birth did not fit my criteria. I may not have a concern about ensoulment but I am aware of many individuals that are concerned about this issue. I felt it relevant enough to include headings for such consideration as this is a question about morality and consequences of actions.

[outinforce]

47. And Just What Is Moral

" felt it relevant enough to include headings for such consideration as this is a question about morality and consequences of actions."

And just what is "moral" about denying parents reproductive choice?

That is what defining "personhood" at the point of birth really does --- it denies parents their reproductive freedom.

Why should parents have to live and suffer with a fetus that may now show defects until after it is born? Why shouldn't parents be allowed to abort such a fetus (as long, of course, as it has not been able to say the sentence I mentioned earlier)?

WHat is so "moral" about making parents support fetuses they decide they do not want after the fetus leaves the womb?

[Az]

51. That would be other

I suspect you will find that the idea of terminating a child that has been born is sufficiently outside the mainstream view that you will find little if any consensus with this position. And while morality may be relative I suspect you will find that this particular position is extreme enough to be considered immoral in the overwhelming majority of cases.

[outinforce]

58. As LIttle As 40 Years Ago,

There was no mainstream support for the view that abortions should be legal at all. THere was no consensus that women should h ave the right to abort their fetus' at all.

40 years ago, the notion that a fetus could be aborted would have been considered "extreme enough" to be considered "immoral" in the overwhelming number of cases.

What is your point?

That we should let the backward notions of the majority concerning what is and what is not "moral" drive what is obviously the right thilng to do?

[Az]

62. Rights and morality

Are not necissarily the same thing. This is a perfect example. And it is for this reason that we need to examine the issue. We are trying to tell a group of people that which they believe to be immoral is a right. We have to understand the nature of this notion of morality as well as our own position on this question.

Even within the context of this debate there is sufficient agreement across the spectrum that terminating a 1 year old child would constitute killing a human being with rights. Thus your position that a parent has the right to "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" is perhaps a bit extreme.

From my position the transition from an organised grouping of cells into a sentient entity is a gradual one. We know the minimum requirements for sentience and we recognise the absolute expression of it via social interaction. But being able to define the moment between potential sentience and absolute is beyond our current ability. Your position entirely depends on a binary understanding of life and sentience. This is not supported by the evidence. Thus it is arguable that the termination of a child simply because it cannot say a specific set of words is immoral and not a right.

[outinforce]

95. Why Do You Keep Bringing Sentience

into this discussion?

For me, sentience has nothing to do with personhood.

For me, what counts is the ability to communicate using language with other persons.

Clearly, a fetus that has just left the womb is not able to communicate using language.

It may be as sentient as you or I.

But it does not possess what I consider to be one of the hallmarks of personhood -- the ability to communicate using language.

And until it does, it is unjust, as far as I am concerned, it forces the parents to create a human being. And being forced to create a human being is the most reprehensible action I can concieve of.

"it is arguable that the termination of a child simply because it cannot say a specific set of words is immoral and not a right."

I'll thank you not to try to cram your morality down my throat, thanks.

[sangh0]

127. Why do you bring up language?

The ability to communicate has never been considered to be a critical factor in one's humanity or personhood.

[Az]

128. Then your position has a great number of flaws

Your definition of personhood is entirely dependent on when you experience anothers existance as a person. Not only that it is dependent on their ability to communicate this existance in means that you specifically are able to understand. The trouble with all this is their existance is not dependent on your perception. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.

Consider this. There are people that have never met you. They have never heard you say a word or read a thing you have ever said. Do they have the right to kill you? In your scenario personhood extends from others not from the individual. If you met someone on the street and shot them before they had a chance to speak by your logic there would be no harm done. They were not human beings. They did not communicate the existance to you. You are free to kill them. It simply doesn't work.

Existance of a person comes from within them. They are not required to fill out a form declaring their existance. They are not required to inform their parents that they have considered the matter and have come to the conclusion that they are an entity that desires to continue to exist. It is our responsibility to accept responsibility for the existance of a person once the potential for existance of that person exists. If there is a reasonable expectation for a person to exist then our laws extend to them. Sentience is the criteria for this consideration and hence the reason I reference it.

[outinforce]

147. Horses and Carts

"Your definition of personhood is entirely dependent on when you experience anothers existance as a person."

That would be like seeing that something has been born and is breathing, right? I mean, I can't know that something is a person, as you see it, unless I also have experienced their existence as a person, right?

"Not only that it is dependent on their ability to communicate this existance in means that you specifically are able to understand."

Stop right there.

I don't have to understand their communication.

Someone, however, does.

A fetus born in Russia that becomes able to communicate, in Russian, the sentence, "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water" woujld not be communicating anything I would understand. But someone would.

"The trouble with all this is their existance is not dependent on your perception."

Their existance is not the issue.

Their "personhood" is what we are discussing here.

I do wish you would stop trying to derail this discussion.

[sangh0]

205. Their personhood begins the moment they are born

according to the dictionary and according to the law.

[outinforce]

225. Well, Duh

But that isn't what I have been discussing.

Can't you keep up?

[sangh0]

227. "Their "personhood" is what we are discussing here."

and now it's

But that isn't what I have been discussing

So to summarize:

Personhood is what "we" are discussing

outinforce is not talking about personhood

[outinforce]

244. Nice Try, Part 3

Wrong.

I am talking about personhood.

What I have not been discussing is this:

"according to the dictionary and according to the law."

Why do you find it so terribly difficult to keep up with the conversation?

[sangh0]

247. Anyone who is born is a person with rights

.

[outinforce]

251. Under Current Law

of course.

Your point in sharing your profound insight into the obvious is what?

[sangh0]

254. No, under past law, and under the Constitution

.

[outinforce]

267. Duh.

So?

[sangh0]

268. So, you are wrong

Anyone who is born is a "person". It has nothing to do with an ability to communicate

[outinforce]

271. Geez!

It ought to be perfectly obvious to anyone except those who are intentionally refusing to see (in order, I suppose, to fan a flame war -- in order to make others look bad) where I stand on this.

Why are you asking this?

Why are you not simply re-reading what I have already said.

It is perfectly obvious.

Why this need of yours to post things like "You are Wrong"?

Is that how you get your Friday afternoon jollies?

[sangh0]

272. Where you stand is unconstitutional

and immoral

[Name removed]

275. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

276. Immoral and unconstitutional

another example of your intentional disregard for inconvenient facts

[outinforce]

285. Just Who Are You, Daphne?

To try to tell me what is immoral and what is moral?

I do not appreciate you trying to tell ME what is immoral.

Tell you what, Daphne -- you can decide what is immoral for you, and I can decide what is immoral for me.

Deal?

[Guaranteed]

67. The position has been argued, though.

It's totally ridiculous, but it's been argued.

[sangh0]

74. Not ridiculous, Barbaric and insane baby-killing

is what outinforce is advocating

[outinforce]

98. "Baby-killing"?

I had hoped that we could have a discussion about abortion without someone resorting to calling her/his opponent a "baby-killer".

It seems that the gestational gestapo finds it nececssary to tar its opponents with the name "baby-killer", rather than addressing the issue.

Pathetic.

And typical.

[JNelson6563]

108. Consider the source friend.

Some folks only know who to communicate using inflammatory language.

Here's a pic of me at early stages in the womb:

<.> Cut little bugger, eh? Get a clue Sang-whatever.

Julie

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

153. I See That In Another Forum,

someone else was able to see the difference between what, in fact, I am saying, and what YOU say I am advocating.

What a pity that you are so obsessed with making me look bad that you cannot see what others see.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

114. See post #110. And do a little search if you don't believe me. (nt)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

110. This is getting tiring.

Most people here (the veterans at least) know your posting history. Stop the charade. You really believe you can manage to get a DU poster to endorse infanticide??? Suggestion: aim a little lower next time. For example, coax somebody into confessing they like Fidel Castro. Way easier.

[outinforce]

Hey, I've Changed

I am most definitely not trying to get any DU poster to endorse infanticide, and I wish you would not say that I am.

What I am advocating is reproductive rights for parents.

I am suggesting that the current way in which the law defines persons unjustly deprives parents of those rights, and I would also suggest that the current law is little more than an attempt by some to shove their morality down the throats of the rest of us.

I frankly resent your suggestion that I am adovating infanticide.

I am adovcating no such thing.

[Guaranteed]

118. You, alone, are talking about LITERALLY killing babies, buddy.

Already born babies. That's baby killing.

[outinforce]

121. Bullshit

simply being born does not make a fetus a baby.

I know lots and lots and lots of people who refuse to call a fetus a fetus -- they call it an "unborn baby".

Doing so then allows them to say that any one who advocates abortion is talking about killing babies.

I know lots and lots and lots of people who call certain methors of abortion baby-killing.

YOU seem to have this notion that a fetus becomes a baby simply by being born.

I don't share that notion, and I reject -- totally -- the notion that you have.

[Guaranteed]

123. LOL this is comical.

Well, once it's been born, it's no longer a fetus- by definition. So, what would you call it, then, if it's not a baby? An ex-fetus? Former fetus?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. Suggestion

Search --> outinforce --> search by Author --> acquire enlightenment.

[sangh0]

131. Here's a start

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1700342#1700903

abortions are "wonderful"

[Az]

133. I do suspect

He is trying to force a ridiculous position in order to play out some nonsense. But over the years of debating all manner of theists I have developed some rather thick skin to absurd arguments and found that having their arguments pulled apart rather than reacting emotionally to them seems to frustrate them a bit more.

There is a particular variety I have come across that love to play with definitions in a kind of post modern inversion. They try to run you round in your own definitions and get you to make some preposterous statement. Staying steady and dealing with the facts as best you can seems to be the best course. Oh and not letting them get to you. Big key item there.

[sangh0]

134. Then you suspect dishonesty?

So do I.

There is a particular variety I have come across that love to play with definitions in a kind of post modern inversion.

Just as you argue we should drop the "rights" argumemnt, here you have chosen to drop any attempt at honest debate. You acknowledge the dishonesty of his arguments, but you chose to treat his arguments as if they were honest.

And I've dealt wit his type before, also. I predict your tactic will not work

[Az]

136. Not exactly

First off a side step. I have not argued to drop the rights argument. In fact its vital IMO. I am just arguing that we need to suppliment it by going after the moral arguments the antichoice crowd are making. By no means would I suggest the laws be based on these arguments. The law must be squarely established on the rights of the people. But tactics of changing the public discourse can be a bit more outside that constricted view.

As to tactics regarding outinforce. Ones goals in discussing an issue with another are contextual. There are many times you will be in a discussion with another where there is no hope of changing their view. They may even be misrepresenting a their view. This does not mean that nothing can be gained from this conversation. It is dependent on whether others are participating or not.

If I were in a one on one discussion with him I would likely have ended the discussion some time ago. But his presense here gives the chance to demonstrate the foolishness of his arguments and demonstrate a means of discussing things without allowing them to blow out of control into a flame fest.

His arguments are played out. Nothing was conceded on either side. But his position has been made clear to others to be ludicrous. No sacrifice of dignity from our side was necissary. All in all I would say we have already won here what we could win. He is cleary a zealot on this matter and his mind (or his deceipt) will not be change freely on his part. Thus demonstrating his argument to be foolish is all that need be done.

[outinforce]

142. Thanks for Your Little Lecture

I see that you have joined the effort to psychoanalyze me.

"The law must be squarely established on the rights of the people."

Clearly, you do not really believe this.

You can't, otherwise you would be for exapnding rights.

And you don't seem to want to do that.

You blather on and on about "sentience" and use it as a means to restrict -- rather than expand -- rights.

[Guaranteed]

164. The baby has rights the moment it is born.

Seems to me like you're trying to restrict that baby's INALIENABLE right to life.

[outinforce]

170. Whose Rights Are More Important Here?

You may not be old enough to remember this, but I am.

There was a time when the laws in most states enshrined the right to life of fetuses.

There were laws that prevented abortion.

Now, much of the debate over abortion comes down to, really, whose rights are more important -- or whose rights should take precedence.

All I am suggesting is two things.

First, that we simply acknowledge that which ought to be obvious except to those who have old-fashioned notions of morality. And that is that a fetus does not become a person simply by being born. A fetus that leaves the womb is not able to speak, and it is certainly not able to "live" in any meaningful sense of that word, on its own. It must be fed and clothed and all the rest.

I am suggesting that the law simply recognize that until a fetus is born, breathing, AND able to articulate the sentence I have posted elsewhere on this thread, IT IS NOT A PERSON.

Second, I am suggesting that parents have the fundamental right, as part of their reproductive rights, to choose whether they in fact become parents. And that that right exist until such time as a fetus becomes a person.

Why is this so radical?

[Guaranteed]

172. A mother has a right to determine whether or not

a fetus is going to be attached to her body. Once it is out of her body, though, the baby's right to life trumps any inconvenience she experiences from the baby's presence. It's pretty simple.

[outinforce]

176. That's Your Own Personal

That is, I submit, your own personal view of morality.

I'm not too sure about this, but it is possible that you are being swayed by some religious notion that says that fetuses that are born ought to be protected.

You are entitled to that belief, just as I am entitled to my belief that a fetus does not become a person simply by being born.

[sangh0]

179. No, it's the law

which is not a "personal view of morality"

[outinforce]

182. Then The Law

needs to change.

The law imposes unjust restrictions on the rights of adults to choose their own reproductive freedom (including the right NOT to become parents).

The law does this by defining "person" in a way that reflects a certain religious view of "personhood".

The law must change in order to expand the reproductive rights of prospective parents.

[Az]

185. Reproduced vs Reproducing

A fetus inutero is in the process of reproducing. A baby born is the results of reproducing. Its done. Over. It is a seperate entity. The descision has already happened. It is no longer a question of reproductive rights.

[outinforce]

190. Says You

"A fetus inutero is in the process of reproducing. A baby born is the results of reproducing."

I do wish you would not continue to attempt to influence our discussion about this topic by insisting upon calling a fetus that has left the womb a "baby".

"Babies" are persons. No one (except pro-life zealots) refers to "babies" when fetuses are in the womb, so why do YOU insist on calling fetuses that have left the womb, "babies", unless you are trying to stack the argument here.

You seem to think that just because a fetus has left the womb that the matter of reproductive rights is at an end.

But so what?

What does that have to do with whether a fetus that has left the womb, but is incapable of using language to express a simople sentence is or is not a person?

[sangh0]

193. No, says the law

and if you want to change the law, go ahead. Until then, it's the law and your opinions are just your opinions.

[Guaranteed]

195. The baby is no longer physically directly dependent on the mother ONLY

for its life.

At that point, ANYONE can keep the baby alive, and much more simply- just by feeding it, and keeping it warm and clean. You don't even have to carry it around 24 hours per day.

[Az]

196. Fetus

From Merriam Websters

Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

Once born it is no longer a fetus by definition.

[Guaranteed]

188. See, you're looking at it all wrong.

When the fetus is actually attached the woman, she has the right to detach it, to let it die. She's not killing it. And there's a difference. If you detach someone from a life-support machine (someone that is dying from an actual ailment, mind you), you're not KILLING them. You're simply allowing them to die. Keep in mind that starving a child to death on purpose is not classified here as a "non-killing," as there is actually nothing wrong with the child. Starving a child (that is not attached to one's body) to death deliberately is murder.

Now, once the baby is born, it's detached. If the baby is going to die, at that point, the woman is going to have to go out of her way somehow to make sure that happens- in other words, she's going to have to KILL it. Further, not only has the nature of her action changed if the baby dies at her hand, but the relationship of the relevant rights of the baby and the woman have also changed. The baby is no longer attached to her, so the moral JUSTIFICATION of the baby's death has changed- the baby no longer dies because the mother is unwilling to carry it 24 hours per day inside of her body. The baby now would have to die simply because the woman, or MAN, for that matter, is unwilling to take care of it OUTSIDE of her body. That is an unacceptable reason to kill a child or allow it to die. The woman's rights are not being significantly enough infringed upon to justify that.

[Az]

192. Clarification

There is no burden on the mother after the birth. Our society is sufficiently supportive that if she wishes to she can walk away. Adoption at this point is readily available.

[outinforce]

197. I'M Looking at it All Wrong?

Me?

I'm the one looking at it all wrong?

I think you might just be trying to shove some of your morality donw my throat, and I do not appreciate it at all.

"The baby now would have to die simply because the woman, or MAN, for that matter, is unwilling to take care of it OUTSIDE of her body. That is an unacceptable reason to kill a child or allow it to die. The woman's rights are not being significantly enough infringed upon to justify that."

What's your basis for saying such a thing is an "unacceptable reason"?

As far as I am concerned, it is just a fetus.

So, from my point of view, if it is not really killing to abort a fetus before it leaves the womb, then why in the world would you ever say that it is not acceptable to compel a woman or a man to care for and feed a fetus after it leaves the womb?

I do wish that you would stop attempting to influence our discussion by cyour continued use of the word "baby" (as in "The baby now would have to die..."). I have made it clear that I do not consider a fetus to be a "baby" simply because the fetus leaves the womb.

Babies are persons.

Fetuses are not.

[Az]

198. Fetus

Again

Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

[sangh0]

200. There ya go again, forcing your morality down his throat

Or is that just a dictionary definition?

[outinforce]

207. I Don't Doubt

that a new word would need to be coined to describe the "being" that is clearly alive between the time a fetus leaves the womb and a person (or baby) comes into existence by virtue of being able to use language to say "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water".

A word that describes something that is not a fetus but not yet a baby -- and certainly not a person.

How about "feby"?

[Az]

213. Doesn't matter what you call it

It is seperate from the mother. She no longer has the right to terminate it. She could walk away now and never look back. But killing it is beyond her rights at that stage.

[outinforce]

218. Under The Current Law,

you are quite correct when you say that the mother has no right to terminate it.

The question, I thought, was should she?

I say she should -- the state is simply unjust when it tells a woman that she cannot terminate the life of that which is not a person.

And I also say that a person does not come into existence until it has the ability to articulate, using language, a very simple sentence.

YOU seem to wish to keep women (and men, too) bound to old definitions which actually restrict their freedom.

Why should you care at all what happens to fetuses after they leave the wom but before they are able to articulate, using langauge, a simple sentence?

WHy is this so important to you?

[sangh0]

224. No, under the throughout US history

a fetus becomes a "person" the moment it's born.

Why should you care at all what happens to fetuses after they leave the wom but before they are able to articulate, using langauge, a simple sentence?

WHy is this so important to you?

Because rights are important. Why aren't rights important to you>

[outinforce]

242. Nice Try, Part 2

Rights are VERY inmportant to me.

So much so that I am willing to expand rights.

WHy are you unwilling to exapnd rights?

[Guaranteed]

204. "JUST" a fetus??

That fetus, that BABY, DOES have value, my friend. You misinterpret our arguments. What you're missing, over and over, is that the mother's right to be free of other living things being attached to her body trumps the rights of the fetus, and THAT is what makes it acceptable for her to remove it.

[sangh0]

206. You're not getting BGL

and outinforce is missing nothing. On the other hand, he is deliberately ignoring some things, and that's what you're not getting.

[Guaranteed]

211. No, I get it, but I figure

I can back him further and further into a corner until he has to address the issue directly or discontinue the discourse.

Just gotta whittle her down...

[outinforce]

212. Which Is It?

Is it the baby that has value?

Or is it the fetus that has value?

For my money, it is a person that has value.

And, for my money, it ain't a person until it can express itself using language.

Before that, it is just a fetus -- or just a fetus, then just a feby.

[sangh0]

214. The "person"

and anyone who has been born is, by law, a person.

If you don't like it, then get the law changed. Until then, I'm right, and you're wrong.

[outinforce]

221. HOORAY!

sangh0 is right and I am wrong!

Hoofuckingray.

By the way, did you get someone else on another forum to agree with you that you are right and I am wrong, also??

Bwahahahaha.

[Guaranteed]

216. They BOTH do.

But it's the rights of the mother and how they relate to the fetus/baby's rights that matter. You see?

In the case of the fetus, the mother's right to be free of living attachments trumps it's rights- whatever they may be at that point.

In the case of the baby, the mother is no longer attached, and the point is moot.

[sangh0]

219. A fetus has NO rights

Only a person has rights, and a fetus is not a person. Once it's born, the fetus becomes a person, and then it has rights.

[outinforce]

222. Only Persons Have Rights

Repeat after me: "Only persons have rights"

WHat I am suggesting is that a fetus does not become a person until it is able to articulate, using language, a simple sentence.

Before that, I argue, it should have no rights.

Once it demonstrates the skill necessary to be a person, it becomes a person (a baby).

Before that, it has not rights.

The mother's rights prevail up until the fetus (or feby, my new word) is able to articulate the sentence, at which point there are two persons.

Surely you see this, don't you?

[sangh0]

229. Once born, a fetus is a person

and has rights, so you can't murder it

[outinforce]

236. Nice Try

but it won't work.

[Az]

223. Life is not oriented for legal convieniance

There are grey areas in biology. Shifts from one state to another. There are issues that are still too complex for us to fully explain. This is because biology is a thing of the real world.

Laws are abstract constructs. They comply to the rules we set down. They are defined by our descisions and our will.

A fetus has value. Even before the brain is formed and a mind arises within it is a unique thing. But it is not a Human Being and it is not seperate from the mother in the eyes of the law.

At some point between the development of the brain and its first prom a mind arises within the complexity of the brain. It is this that develops language in time and is able to communicate its desire for water. It is this that we seek to protect with our legal constructs. It is not its ability to communicate its desire for water that calls for our protection. It is simply that it exists that we seek to defend it.

A fetus is valued. A woman's right to control her body and decide what path she wishes to take is valued. A babies right to life is valued. Within this web we set down laws that establish what actions are permissible within our understanding of the world around us. We understand that the self in ourself is not defined by words but by awareness. And we seek to extend the same rights to those we suspect of having the same experience of self as we do.

[outinforce]

228. Under The Law,

the fetus has no value.

Except in states like California.

And under recently-passed Fedral law.

But those laws are stupid.

I see you are trying to inject your argument about "the mind" again.

Tell me, when does the mind begin to exist" How do you know? When does the mind stop existing? How do you know?

[sangh0]

230. A fetus becomes a person when born and has rights, UNDER THE LAW

which you cite when it's convenient, and ignore otherwise.

[outinforce]

234. Well, Duh

"A fetus becomes a person when born and has rights, UNDER THE LAW"

Who here is arguing otherwise?

Do you just post to get attention for yourself?

[Az]

233. Know?

I do not know when the mind begins to exist. Not specifically anywayl. But I do have some understanding of some of the things required for the mind to arise.

A brain. Brains are fairly necissary for minds to develop.

Some experience. We may not know exactly how much the brain needs t experience in order for the mind to begin to arise from the chaos. But some experience seems to be required.

Now as the experential aspect is still uncertain it seems the minimum we can say is that a fully functioning brain capable of reasonably generating a mind is the starting point of identity. In other words once a brain is present there is a possible identity present that may wish to continue being present despite their inability to communicate with us as yet.

[outinforce]

235. I Can Know

when a feby is able to articulate a simple sentence.

You cannot know, by your own words, when a mind begins to exist.

I have an objective and measurable means to determine personhood.

You don't.

[Az]

241. DIfferences

You can know when a person is present. But you cannot know when the arose. I cannot know when they arose but I also do not run the risk of killing someone.

You cannot impose your abstract construct on reality and claim it as absolute truth. Truth flows from reality. Not the other way around. Your awareness of another entity or person does not define when they actually exist. Their own personal reference defines that and you do not have direct experience of it.

[outinforce]

256. Blah, Blah, Blah

Let's see.

I'm sure there is a thought rattling around in that post somewhere.

Oh, here it is:

"You can know when a person is present"

Yeah, I sure can.

It's when it is able to say something like, oh, I don't know, something like, "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water".

[sangh0]

248. NO you can't

because there is no such thing as a "feby"

[outinforce]

253. Here

Since, in addition to being "thread monitor", it now appears that you wish to be "thread language nanny", here is my ealrier post re-written so as to meet what appears to be your objection:

I Can Know when a human collection of cells that has left the womb but is not yet show its ability to articulate a simple sentence becomes able to articulate a simple sentence.

You cannot know, by your own words, when a mind begins to exist.

I have an objective and measurable means to determine personhood.

You don't.

How did I do, teach?

[sangh0]

255. Badly

Your use of "feby" shows you have no objectivity. If you did, you wouldn't have to invent new words

[outinforce]

258. And Now You Wish To Be

thread semanticist.

Since you want to talk about inventing new words, maybe you could explain why "sangh0" needed a new word -- oh, like say, sangha, in order to do whatever it is sangh0 (or is it sangha?) does?

[sangh0]

260. I'd rather discuss your non-existent "objectivity"

and your invention of new words and new definitions for old words.

[outinforce]

266. Why Should I Believe

that you want to discuss anything with me??!!

You had to run to another forum with an OUTRAGEOUS accusation about me.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I'll discuss things with folks who make an honest effort to understand what I am saying.

You don't.

Go bother someone else.

There a plenty of other threads.

[sangh0]

269. Or your ridiculous daffynition of a "baby"

Once a fetus is born, it's a baby.

[Name removed]

273. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

277. It looks like you given up on your fantasy

of legalizing the killing of babies

[outinforce]

289. What's The Matter, Daphne?

What's the matter, Daphne?

Can't you read what another rather important person has written to you (in response to your "heads up") in another forum?

Is it that you are too busy monitoring everyone else's comments and use of words to see what others are telling you?

Is that why you post statements about me that simply are not accurate?

Or is it that you intentionally wish to smear me?

Love,

Chester

[outinforce]

286. Says You

Some say that once sperm meet ovum, it's a baby.

You say that once a fetus is born, it's a baby.

What are you, part of the gestational gestapo, Daphne?

[outinforce]

288. That's A Position, Daphne

your position is not too much different from that of the gestational gestapo.

The gg, as you well know, wishes to call fetuses that are still inside the womb "unborn babies". In so doing, they hope to terrorize and marginalize the pro-choice folks who correctly point out that a fetus is not a baby.

You seem to want to persist in the notion that a fetus becomes a person -- a baby -- simply by being born.

In so doing, you buy into the current legal system that actually encourages people to think that way -- much the same way as the pre-Roe v. Wade actually encouraged people to think of fetuses in the womb as unborn babies.

You might want to try, in the interestes of expanding reproductive choice for adults -- to at least think about how you use words here, Daphne.

It ain't a baby while it's in the womb.

And it ain't a baby 'til it can use language.

[Guaranteed]

279. YES.

"There are grey areas in biology. Shifts from one state to another. There are issues that are still too complex for us to fully explain. This is because biology is a thing of the real world.

Laws are abstract constructs. They comply to the rules we set down. They are defined by our descisions and our will.

A fetus has value. Even before the brain is formed and a mind arises within it is a unique thing...

A fetus is valued. A woman's right to control her body and decide what path she wishes to take is valued. A babies right to life is valued. Within this web we set down laws that establish what actions are permissible within our understanding of the world around us. We understand that the self in ourself is not defined by words but by awareness. And we seek to extend the same rights to those we suspect of having the same experience of self as we do."

That is the CORRECT answer.

[outinforce]

138. Ha. Ha.

I fail to see the humor.

SOme call fetuses in the womb "unborn babies".

Now THAT is funny.

"Well, once it's been born, it's no longer a fetus- by definition. So, what would you call it, then, if it's not a baby? An ex-fetus? Former fetus?"

You say that once it's been born, it's no longer a fetus -- by definition.

By whose definition?

Yours?

So what would I call it?

A fetus that has left the womb.

Not a baby.

Anymore than I think it appropriate to call a fetus an "unborn baby".

[Guaranteed]

139. Yeah, and who

says bachelors are unmarried men?

I know PLENTY of old married lady bachelors!

On edit: Maybe YOU can define the word "baby" for me, if it isn't a newly born (within a year or two) human being.

[outinforce]

144. Baby

Here's my definition.

A member of the human species, within five years of leaving the womb, that has the capability of saying, in any language, a sentence of complexity equal to this one: "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water."

Before that, it is a fetus. At some point, it is a fetus inside the womb. Then it is a fetus outside the womb. Then it is a baby.

Some may prefer to call a fetus that has left the womb, a "baby", but then, in my book, they are just as wrong to use that term as those who call a fetus inside the womb an "unborn baby".

[Guaranteed]

152. Hmmm...five years?

Seems a little arbitrary to me. Why five years? If a baby has to have the skills for complex speech, why cut off the classification at five years?

Why can't a 16 year old be a baby?

[outinforce]

155. I Know Some 16-year-olds

who are bigger babies than two-year-olds.

Hell, I know some people (I am not talking about you here) who are able to post on the internet who are big babies.

Five years just seemed to me the point at which someone stops being a baby.

The point about saying that, in order to be called a baby, a baby has to be able to articulate the sentence I wrote is that before that time, my definition would not call it a person. Little persons are babies. Before something is a little person, it is not a baby. It is a fetus.

Now, I suppose if people wanted to use, as a "figure of speech" the word baby in referring to something that has not yet become what I would call a baby, then I would certainly understand. After all, people do say things like, "My wife is pregnant with our third child", when we all know that what the wife is pregnant with is really not a child.

But if a parent should choose to abort the fetus, we would NEVER say that she has killed a child, would we? No. We would never use the language against her in such a mean way.

In the same way, some gestational gestapo members wish to call fetuses that have not left the womb yet "unborn babies". They like to do that, I think, because they can then accuse those who advocate CHOICE as advocating baby-killing, when in fact baby-killing is not advocated at all.

[Guaranteed]

159. So you think you should be able kill anyone under the age of five?

I mean, since babies (those under the age of five who can speak complexly, by your definition) aren't people, and one is only prohibited from killing a person, right?

I gotta tell ya, that only makes that age of five that you picked sound even MORE arbitrary...

And who are these sixteen year olds that you speak of? Is it alright to murder them, since they're such big babies?

[outinforce]

167. I Wish

I do wish you would not put words into my mouth.

I have never said that I think that anyone should be able to kill anoyone under the age of five.

What I have said is that I do not think "personhood" is obtained until a "fetus" is able to articulate the following using language --
"Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water".

You asked how I would define the word "baby".

My response, I think, was that a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a person when it is able to articulate the sentence I have mentioned.

Between that point and the point that is five years after it leave the womb, I would call such a person a baby.

Of course, babies should never be killed.

That would be truly barbaric.

[Guaranteed]

168. No, you said it wasn't a BABY until it could speak in

complex sentences...and THEN you said that babies aren't PEOPLE. And only PEOPLE can't be killed.

THUS, by YOUR definitions, anyone under the age of five can be killed.

[outinforce]

171. Go Back And Re-Read

what I have written.

I think you will see that you have mis-interpreted what I have said.

I have never, nor would I ever, say that anyone under the age of five could be aborted.

[Guaranteed]

173. So you agree that babies are people? nt

[outinforce]

180. Define What You Mean by "Baby"

I have, I think, been pretty clear about how I define "baby".

And so, using my own definition, I would say that the way I define baby means that babies are of course people -- or, to be even more precise, persons.

But if you mean by "baby" a fetus that has just been born and has taken its first breath, then no -- that is not a person.

Or if you mean by "baby" something that is still inside the womb (an "unborn baby"), then no, that is no more a person than a fetus that has just left the womb and has drawn its first breath is a person.

It all depends on what you mean.

[Guaranteed]

191. No, you weren't clear about whether or not you believe a baby

is a person.

By your definition, is a baby a person or not?

[sangh0]

194. outinforce won't explain himself

and he doesn't answer questions.

Keep asking them anyway

[Guaranteed]

199. See, here's why I ask...

A fetus, by definition, is an UNBORN child. Check any dictionary.

Now, you say that babies are people, but according to you humans can't be called babies until they can speak in complex sentences. So, my question is, since once a fetus is born it is no longer a fetus, what does one call someone that is between the stages of being born and being able to speak? Not a baby, not a fetus...so, what is it?

[Az]

202. Here ya go

One more iteration of the def can't hurt.

Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

[sangh0]

203. I know why you ask and so does outinforce

which is why he won't answer

[outinforce]

239. Don't Go There!

a fetus is a fetus is a fetus is a fetus.

I do not know what you mean by "unborn child".

That, and phrases like it, are what I hear rabid pro-life folks using all the time.

Understand, I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS accuse you of being pro-life.

And, in response to your question about what I would call a thing that is between the stage of having just left the womb and being able to speak a simple sentence, I believe I have alsready answered that elsewhere on this thread (There is a post entitled "I Don't Doubt. YOu might want to look at it).

I would call it a feby.

[Guaranteed]

280. "I would call it a feby."

You WOULD call it a feby? Or is that what you DO call it?

You're telling me that if you were to compliment someone's 1 year old, you'd say, "Oh, that's a beautiful feby!"? You make regular use of this word?

[outinforce]

237. Using My Definition of "Baby"

of course it is a person.

[Az]

238. Must be nice

To be able to redefine things to fit your world view.

[outinforce]

240. Yeah,

it's really, really nice.

YOU ought to try it sometime.

There are plenty of folks here who can show you how.

[Az]

243. I just have to ask

You seem to have a great deal of anger and contempt towards the denizens of this site. Why do you subject yourself to it? Surely you do not crave the social discomfort of discussing such things with people you seem to despise. Why do you prolong your stress?

[outinforce]

246. What In The World Are You Talking About?

I have no anger against anyone here.

How dare you suggest that I "despise" anyone.

If anyone seems to be angry, it seems to be those who would suggest that another poster "despises" others simply because they have viewpoints different from his own.

[sangh0]

250. It's called "Transfer techniques"

http://www.mapinc.org/propaganda/propaganda/proptech.htm#transfer_technique

Transfer. This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities.

[outinforce]

270. Didn't You

write the book on that technique?

I just know I saw your name somewhere associated with "transfer technique".

"It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities."

Would that be the sort of emotional response that causes someone to run to another forum with an untrue and outrageous accusation?

[Az]

252. Perhaps its in your delivery

You seem to overreact to things such as my previous comment. Although I do admit you do try to maintain a pretense of civility it seems to many to be attempting to goad others into reactions. I do not know if this is intentional or not but it certaintly is the consensus. Perhaps if you moderated your style and did not parse yourself the way you do you would not be met with as much rejection as I am sure you experience.

Phrases like "How dare you suggest that I depise anyone" seem out of place compared to the initiating comment. Almost as if one were trying to inflame a discussion. If one were truly interested in maintaining a civil discourse the best course would seem to be to try to realign the communication errors that crop up. Instead there seems to be present in your style a knack for going after the comments that can spiral out of control.

Perhaps its just me. But maybe you will take some advice if you really want to discuss such controvercial issues. Your percieved persona is overly aggressive. You may not intend it but that is how you come across.

[sangh0]

257. "How dare you suggest that I depise anyone"

It's not like he's ever accused someone else of hating gays, or anythig like that.

[outinforce]

264. Hey, You Post On This Board

and as the rules say, "A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board."

[NashVegas]

160. Where Does That Leave Deaf-Mutes?

Retro-actively abortable at any age?

[outinforce]

166. What Do You Mean?

I think I have already responded to this very same question on this thread.

What does being deaf have to do with anything I have said here?

And are you suggesting that people who are unable to speak are also not able to communicate via language

[Zomby Woof]

46. Retroactive abortions?

I am all for it.

[Solly Mack]

48. Until the 40th trimester, at least.

[sangh0]

77. I hope you two are just joking about killing babies

.

[Guaranteed]

78. They're just playing

Talking about crazy stuff helps narrow down our priorities and definitions relating to the issue.

[Solly Mack]

81. Very true

Sometimes, you just gotta embrace the absurd.

[sangh0]

115. Well, then I hope you realize that someone is serious about this

.

[Guaranteed]

120. I dunno...I don't think he's serious...

I think he's playing devil's advocate.

[sangh0]

132. I know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1700342#1700903

"Abortions are wonderful"

[outinforce]

50. Not Retroactive

I think you and I may be talking about the same thing, but I weould hasten to ad that the use of a phrase like "retroactive" abortions may be misleading.

As long as a fetus is being aborted, there is nothing "retroactive" about an abortion.

What I am suggesting is that our notion of "personhood" must change in order to give parents total reproductive freedom.

It makes no sense to say that simply by being born and drawing a breath a fetus changes from fetus to person.

What does matter is that a fetus is able to articulate his/her thoughts and ideas.

So, until a fetus is able to do that, it remains a fetus.

And aborting such a fetus does not make an abortion "retroactive".

[Az]

54. Communication of thoughts or posession of thoughts

Sentience arises long before the ability to communicate said sentience arrives. You'r methodology would easily lead one into communication errors. It takes quite a lot of learning after the mind has taken hold in the brain to develope a means of communicating in language.

Language is not sentience. It is a subset of sentience.

[outinforce]

60. Dogs and Cats

are sentiend beings also.

What's your point about sentience?

I thought we werem talking about "persons".

It is ok to abort fetuses.

It is not OK to abort to abort persons.

I am suggesting that our definition of persons is far, far, too limited, and that it restricts too severely the reproductive rights of parents.

Nad that it must be changed.

[Az]

66. Our definition

Here's the thing. Its our definition. Not your definition. We have to strive together to create a definition within social boundaries. We each apply our position to the definition and through social forces the definition arises from this exchange. I feel rather confident that your particular argument lacks sufficient evidence, support, or force to move the definition in any particular direction (except in a retrograde direction due to revulsion on some people's part). Unless you can posit a succinct argument as to why it should be moral to kill a living, thinking human being that is incapable of verbal communication I see no reason to grant your agrument any creadance.

[Guaranteed]

76. Well,

the argument typically goes that if a being doesn't have a sense of itself (and most babies don't, apparently), then you've done it no harm in killing it, so it's not an immoral act.

[Az]

79. The trick then becomes one of determining the rise of self

We can define some particulars. It seems to necessitate a brain. The brain needs to collect enough information to begin associating experiences with each other. Self seems to rise from this process of correlating experiences with each other.

Our current ability to distinguish the development of this process is limited to identifying when the brain is reasonably functional. At this point the possibility of the existance of a sentient being rises dramatically with each passing moment.

[Guaranteed]

80. Yeah, but we don't want to kill babies.

What we want is for abortion to be legal, and killing babies illegal. So, we're going to have to protect those that are merely potential persons (babies) without also protecting fetuses (although we have the violinist argument, which I guess will be irrelevant with my definition).

I say the definition should be that a person is a human being which has the potential to have a sense of self, while also being able to live unattached to any other living being. This definition may inadvertantly include some late-term fetuses.

Again, though, with the violinist argument it really shouldn't matter whether or not fetuses are "people." Just as long as we're not saying that killing babies is okay.

[outinforce]

103. "We Have To Strive Together"

"We have to strive together to create a definition within social boundaries."

A quaint notion.

Meanwhile, while you are "striving together" and all that, the rights of parents are being denied because of the way the law defines "person".

This is a matter of rights.

So, while you are doing all of your striving, some people are bieng forced to become parents.

And, as someone here said, being forced to create a human being is the most reprehensible action I can concieve of.

[Guaranteed]

73. The definition of "person" most commonly used

in this argument is a being that has a "sense of self," not a being that communicates, certainly not just a sentient being. Sentient beings are a dime a dozen.

[outinforce]

105. So?

why should I care that a definition of "person" is being used that denies parents a right I think they should have?

[Guaranteed]

106. That particular definition isn't being used

for anything, at the moment. That's the definition for YOUR argument.

Or does anything define a person? Should straight up murder be legal?

Why can't we just go around killing people?

[outinforce]

149. Should Murder Be Legal?!

Should murder be legal?!?!?

Why, hell no it should not be legal!

Why do you ask something like that?

Look at all the social progress that has come about by burying the notion that people had (and the law, I think, enshrined several years ago -- that fetuses had a "right to life".

What I am suggesting is burying the notion that says that fetuses, once they leave the womb, become, by that very act, persons. I have stated, I think, my own criterion -- a measurable and objective criterion, which the law could very easily apply, for determining the point at which a fetus stops being a fetus and becomes a person.

And I would never ever advocate that we just go around killing people.

What I do advocate, however, is that parents have the right to choose whether to abort fetuses -- up until the point at which the fetus becomes a person.

But I would never advocate killing.

Choice, yes. Killing, no.

[Zomby Woof]

55. aborting a fetus

Is a waste of a perfectly good snack.

[outinforce]

57. I Agree

What is your preferred snack involving a fetus?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

99. Nice try. No, I correct myself. It is not nice.

NOBODY believes that straw man and you very well know that. In fact, I dare you point me to one person that believes a 6-month or older fetus should be allowed to be aborted at the whim of the mother. (barring extreme conditions like the ones I lay out at post #93)

I suppose you MAY succeed in that if you look at seriously neo-Nazi sites like stormfront, white nation etc. But hey, I'm feeling generous. I'll admit even those as a valid example.

[outinforce]

163. So You Are Saying .....

Let me make sure I understand you correctly here.

"I dare you point me to one person that believes a 6-month or older fetus should be allowed to be aborted at the whim of the mother."

You don't believe that a 6-month or older fetus should be allowed to be aborted at the whim of it's mother?

I believe that the mother is the only one who should be allowed to decide whether to abort a 6-month old fetus.

Your question, as I understand it, is whether or not a mother should "be allowed" to abort a 6-month-old fetus.

If I have incorrectly stated your question, do let me know.

I think most pro-choice people would agree with me that a mother should be allowed to abort a six-month-old fetus.

[Az]

165. Careful

Semantic argument about to ensue. Clarify terms. Fetus = prebirth. Baby = post birth. A 6 month old fetus is still in the womb. A 6 month old baby was born 6 months ago.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

169. Az: check your inbox. (nt)

[NashVegas]

156. You Seem to Have a Limited Concept of Oral Expression

Parents learn quickly to interpret just about every sound that comes out of an infant's mouth. It is not difficult to distinguish the difference between cries of hunger, pain, bewilderment, whatever.

And then you have non-verbal communication. Grunt, grunt, smile = "Mommy, I just took a shit."

[outinforce]

158. No Doubt

I have a cat.

I "understand' the various things my cat expresses.

But that is not the same thing as saying that my cat is a person.

What I am saying is that in order to be considered a person, a member of the human species must be able to communicate using language.

Which is, I think, much more than expressing one's wants using the same means my cat does.

[sangh0]

259. What you are saying is asinine

What I am saying is that in order to be considered a person, a member of the human species must be able to communicate using language.

Which is why your "objective criteria" has never been supported by any fact or anyone but you.

[The Flaming Red Head]

52. Cuts down the welfare rolls

for one thing.

[3rdParty]

83. As long as most of the abortions are by people from the inner cities....

its a great thing for society. Gotta keep the numbers of the poor down. Only people that can afford it should be able to have kids.

[gpandas]

84. do you have info to support this statement? n/t

[Monte Carlo]

71. I'm willing to grant that abortions kill something that is alive...

... as a fetus is. I'm even willing to grant that sometimes a sentient being is killed in the process. That is not the issue. It is more complex than that. The baby, quite frankly, cannot be treated as if it is above all else, because it is not.

I'm a Catholic, but I'm not a big fan of the Original Sin. I don't believe that a human being is formed at conception.

I do think, however, that Roe V. Wade is a good standard for abortion; can the fetus survive outside the womb on its own? I really don't think there's any legit reason for aborting a mid-to-late fetus for a mere preference or birth control. My mother was adopted, and I'm glad her biological mother decided to have her. Medical science is pushing this standard earlier into the term, which is a very, very good thing. Technology could altogether eliminate the dilemma.

[outinforce]

92. When You Say "Survive"

I think you are on to something.

FIrst, in order to be clear, when I use the term "fetus", I mean it much more broadly that a lot of other people do. For me, personhood requires more than simply leaving the womb. For me, personhood means being able to communicate one's thoughts using language. So, when I use the term "fetus", I am referring to something from the point of conception up until the thing is able to say the following sentence: "Mother, I am thirsty, and I want some cold water". Even if a fetus has left the womb, it remains, for me, a fetus until it is able to say that sentence.

CLearly, a fetus that is born cannot survive outside the womb on its own. If you think it can, I invite you to see what happens when a healthy fetus that has been born is left totally alone for a week or so.

It dies.

The fact that the prospective parents of a fetus that has left the womb must feed and clothe it make that fetus little more than a parasite. And no one should be compelled to feed and cloth such a parasite.

[Nikia]

161. But when it is born someone else can help it survive

The fetus is no longer depndent on its biological mother when it is born. Any other somewhat responsible person could enable the infant to survive if the mother chose not to help the infant survive or even died. After birth, women can choose to leave the baby at the hospital instead of killing it with no further inconvience. In Wisconsin there is a law, allowing mothers to abandon newborns to hospitals or other emergency personnel with no repurcussions.
Before the baby is born, it's life depends upon the mother's life. If the mother were to die, unless the fetus was late term and removed shortly its mothers death, the fetus would die. If the mother would stop eating, do very strenuous activity, ingest poisons, be severely injurted, ect., the fetus would die. The growing fetus causes the mother to go through a series of medical changes which put her health at risk. It is on this basis that a mother can choose to abort her fetus.
Many people who oppose earlier term abortion oppose late term abortion because the fetus many be likely to survive if it is removed from the mother.
I have read your arguements. They are absurd. I do not support killing newborns. To allow parents to kill toddlers who are late talkers, who may or may not be as intelligence as other children, is even worse. Some of these toddlers may even be able to survive on their own given a favorable environment if they had to.

[outinforce]

174. I See

The post I was earlier responding to said this:

"I do think, however, that Roe V. Wade is a good standard for abortion; can the fetus survive outside the womb on its own?"

If one wishes to "whether the fetus can survive outside the womb on its own" as the standard for whether or not a fetus should be aborted, then I would submit that a fetus can never survive outside the womb on its own.

SOMEONE has to take care of it. Someone would have to be burdened with it.

Fetuses cannot survive on their own outside the womb for a very long time after they leave the womb. In fact, I would guess that a fetus who leaves the womb most likely acquires language skills before it acquires skills necessary to find its own food and water. But that's just a guess.

"I have read your arguements. They are absurd. I do not support killing newborns. To allow parents to kill toddlers who are late talkers, who may or may not be as intelligence as other children, is even worse"

Thanks for your statement of YOUR morality.

I think we should all be able to decide such private things for ourselves, don't you?

What I might suggest is that if you do not like the thought of aborting fetuses who have left the womb and who are unable to articulate using language a simple sentence, then don't have such an abortion.

[Az]

178. Choices remain after birth

But one of the choices is not termination. Once the child is born parents can give it up for adoption if they so choose. It constitutes no burden to them any longer at this point. There is no compelling reason to allow a parent to kill a child once born. There is no burden enforced on them to carry the child further. There is support within the society to take the burden from them at any point after the birht.

During pregnancy it is a matter of choice on the part of the woman to bear the burden of carrying a child. We have no mechanism in place to take this burden off her hands other than to end the pregnancy.

[outinforce]

184. Might I Suggest

that if, for some reason, you find the notion of letting parents have the right to decide their own reproduction, including the right to abort a fetus that has been born but cannot yet articulate a simple sentence using language -- if you find that so troubling, then just don't have one.

OK?

[Az]

189. Sorry your argument continues to fail

Killing a baby (yes its a baby, you don't get to redefine the language because of your crusade) after it is independent of the mother is not a reproductive right. As long as the baby is attached and totally dependent on the mother it is a reproductive right. But after birth she is no longer burdened in any way. She cannot take it upon herself to kill the baby. While attached to her it is a question of her body and reproductive rights. Dettached it is no longer a reproductive right. If she wishes she can walk away from the baby and never look back.

[Delano]

87. The notion that a 2-cell zygote has a "soul" is ludicrous.

It has no more soul than the stain on Monica's dress.

I have a big problem with LATE-TERM abortions. I spent too much time watcching my kids on the wife's ultrasound to be that callous.

I tend to think: 1st trimester abortions - absolutely okay. 2nd trimester - acceptable under some circumstances. 3rd trimester - NO WAY with the exception of a danger to the life of the mother.

[shimmergal]

88. As for facing our opponents

The most rabid anti-choicers will say, "It's not about the baby. The baby is OK; it's with God." The implication, therefore, is, that it's a question of the woman's bad behavior, NOT the failure to let a potential person develop.

If there is indeed ensoulment at conception (which I doubt but will grant for the sake of argument), why should a supposedly all-powerful God not have the ability to either: put the soul into another about-to-be fetus, so it can experience life, OR take it directly to heaven so it never has to know all the pain and tragedies of earthly existence?

The only way I view an abortion as tragic is looking at it from a strictly biological perspective: that this particular person-to-be nevere had a chance to live life fully. From this perspective abortions are tragic, but some may be necessary.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. What we value (or SHOULD value) is the Self. The Mind. The Soul.

An undifferentiated blob of cells has as much chance of having a soul as a paperclip does. I, therefore, feel confident to file the "life begins at conception" belief under "poppycock", along with Creation "Science".

I go with the Carl Sagan criterion: research the earliest date when the fetus starts having a possibility of having even a primitive self, and establish the most conservative date as a cutoff. It may turn out to be 2, 3, or 4 months, doesn't matter, as long as the neurological facts have been properly established.

Rape/abuse cases are neatly covered this way, because the victim may check for pregnancy as soon as the crime happens.

And then there's anencephalic fetuses. In this case, there's no "there" there. May abort at any stage, choose the one that least compromises the mother's health.

Another special case: unviability. It has been determined that the fetus WILL die at delivery, maybe with risk to the mother. In this case, an abortion is just euthanasia -- even more justified than euthanasia, because the earlier the abortion, the less sentience there is in the fetus and therefore the less pain there is.

[Alpha Wolf]

102. Tough Question?

One of the poll options was:

"We are a sentient species. Its the mind that matters. A fetus without a fully functoinal brain is just some cells."

Under this definition, what do we consider brain-damaged and/or severly mentally handicapped persons? Are they just some cells too?

[Az]

119. Their brain is functional

Just because they are not as functional as our preferences would desire does not indicate that they are not without rights. I am a godless parent (inside joke)to an autistic child. Brain damaged? Yes. A person? Definately. And quite the handfull.

[yella_dawg]

126. Crap!

I thought this was like one of those "What would Jesus do?" things.

[GreenPartyVoter]

130. 12 weeks.

[wadestock]

140. I disagree with the premise....

This was an issue brought to the forefront by the psycho religious neo-cons that want us to get wrapped around the axle.

Anyone with common sense knows it's a deeply personal decision.

I have a 12 year old son now and my wife considered abortion for a number of reasons I don't want to go into. But she resolved it all by herself, with me pushing of course to have the child.

The phony balony obvious part about the repukes is that they want to maintain a high moral ground on the issue, but they won't subsidize anything to help mothers afford to bring up the child. The generally don't support ANY social program which looks into the real core issues of why abortion is considered in the first place.

The Democrats should completely change the argument....it's the only way out of this.

When asked do we support abortion....we should answer resoundingly NO.....we must do everything in our power to PREVENT abortions.....and shore up parental consent and social programs to make having a child that much more reasonable.

We must point out that the psycho religious stance on this really doesn't address any of the real core issues involved.

Don't get caught up in the same losing formula of how this issue is treated.

[Az]

145. A better way to phrase it

We support doing the right thing in each individual circumstance. In some cases doing the right thing for the individual will be to see the pregnancy through. For others the best choice is to end it before any further harm may come. What we support is enabling people to have access to all the means and information to make the very best descision they can. And once they make the descision the society should be able to support them fully in whichever path they choose.

[IronLionZion]

141. Abortion is murder - unholy and evil

But I'll be damned if I let the Republicans throw these babies into orphanages, and our women into prison. A child should not suffer neglect, abuse, and other forms of unthinkable adversity just so Republicans can ease their consciences about executing retarded people.

Pro-life and Pro-choice.

[Michael Costello]

281. government

I don't even think much about the question of when life begins and all of that. The question to me is whether the government, a government which executes retarded people (including the Democrats like Bill Clinton) should lock up women who have an abortion. I certainly wouldn't give government that power. I don't even think about when life begins because there's no reason to, in the Republican stick and carrot game its just one more instance of the Republicans wanting to use the stick against the most vulnerbale people.

Most polls show the reason people will least likely accept for abortion is poverty. Which means in effect that these people feel if women driven by poverty, which I believe is a creation by the idle class enforced on poor people as a means of control over working people, want to have an abortion to spare themselves of a burden and their child of a burdened life, they should be punished.

If you read Marx, he talks about how systems are reproduced. He also talks about how it is essential for capitalism to work that there be poverty. I see this as essentially punishing people who do not want to reproduce this system of poverty in perpetuity. Rabbits have the ability to miscarry their fetuses if famine or disease occur, humans don't. Then again, you can just pull out the cross and blame the woman for being a whore for enjoying having sex and accidentally becoming pregnant.

[put out]

148. You don't need to worry about it for me.

I won't worry about it for you. If ever faced with a choice, I prefer to have a choice not subject to someone else's feelings. They are entitled to their feelings and opinions. You are entitled to yours. I will not be subject to another's feelings and opinions. I will not subject another person to mine.

Make your choices. I can make my own, thank you. My choices are not made lightly, as if on a whim.

[smirkymonkey]

154. Thank you!

Women are not only entitled to their own feelings, they are entitled to their own concept of morality and the power to make decisions regarding thier own bodies.

[outinforce]

157. No. Thank YOU

"Women are not only entitled to their own feelings, they are entitled to their own concept of morality"

And not just women.

Men, too, are entitled to their own concept of morality.

Including the notion that it is immoral for the state not to allow prospective parents to choose whether or not to become parents at any point prior to the point at which a fetus not only leaves the womb but also acquires the ability to say, in any language, "Mother, I am thirsty, and I need some cold water".

[Guaranteed]

162. That's not a good argument.

If people are allowed to say that, there would be no criminals.

I understand what you're saying, but you need to be more specific.

[redqueen]

175. I chose other

Because to me, it's not about a soul, or heaven, or brain function.

To me, it's a simple question of rights. Yes, the woman has the right to control her body and her future (and her health, read about pregnancy increasing 'bad cholesterol' for 10 years after pregnancy - yikes!)

I used to be 100% pro-choice, and continued on that way, until I had a baby. At that point, I realized that to me, it is *before* the baby is born that it becomes its own person. It kicks, hears, moves, feels... so how can it be 'part of my body'? Sure, when in the womb it is dependent on me for air and nutrients, but at what point would it be able to live on its own if removed from that protective place?

I don't know the answer, but we know that when Roe was written these issues were taken into consideration. Now that science has progressed and succesful and thriving children that were delivered as premature infants are more common, this issue has to be dealt with. It cannot be shouted down or stomped into submission.

[Trav2]

181. :(

I don't know how you can choose to think that an unborn child is not a person. I have watched a video of an ultrasound taken during an abortion and you can see the child squirming to get away from the suction tool. It deeply saddened me and convinced me that the child is well aware of what is going on. I don't see how passing through the birth canal would magically make the child a sentient being.

[Az]

183. Well that is why we are asking questions

To get various positions. As for myself I pin my position to the brain. No brain=no person. Working brain=possible person. Keep in mind though that there can be a good deal of confusion between motor functions and conscious functions.

[outinforce]

186. It Doesn't

and, as far as I am concerned, it shouldn't even make it a person.

[sangh0]

209. It does

and the law agrees

[LuminousX]

187. Potential versus Actual

The Actual takes precedent over the Potential.

If the cells in the womb were to be removed and with little assistance develop into a fully grown human, then those cells are human. If the cells in the womb were to be removed and with the same amount of assistance don't develop any further but die off, then those cells are not human.

Calling a collection of cells a human when it clearly isn't undermines the concept of what a human is.

[outinforce]

201. And Calling Something Human

which is unable to do something that humans do also undermines the concept of what human is, don't you agree?

[Az]

210. Nope

Doing is not what defines humans. Being is what defines us. Hence the term Human Being. It is not a question of responsibility to demonstrate one's humanity to be extended the rights of humanity. To create the fairest and best representation of rights we must extend them to that which we can reasonably expect to fit our understanding of human. We even manage to extend rights to creatures that are not human because we understand that they have a sense of self as we do.

A person that cannot escape the confines of their own mind is as much a human being as anyone else. An autistic child that cannot comminicate the most basic ideas is still a human being. Their identity and experience of self are just as real as any others. In time it may even be possible to break through the barriers and form a connection to the person and bring them out. But the definition of whether they have the right to the same journey we are on is not dependent on their expressing themself.

[sangh0]

217. Being born is what defines our legal status

as "persons". Nothing else.

Value has nothing to do with it. As a free citizen I don't have to place any value on your life or anyone else's, including my own. However, the law requires that I not infringe on anyone else rights, and if I do, the law can punish me for doing so.

[redqueen]

215. Duuuuuuuude

I see what you're doing here, and it's *obviously* not working. Why don't you try directly stating what you're getting at instead of using oblique arguments?

It might garner some serious discussion instead of all this silly dancing around about terminology. Just put it out there.

[sangh0]

220. He likes the attention

and he likes the disruption

[LuminousX]

226. pardon?

Obviously not working? Oh well. I stated my opinion and since I prefer abstraction to avoid emotional responses, c'est la vie.

If you wish it more crudely put ...

If you can yank the fetus from the womb and with minimal medical attention it will develop fairly normally, it is a human. If you yank it from the womb and with the same minimal medical attention it turns into dead tissue, it isn't.

Medically we can determine that there is a general point in time when this transformation occurs, when the Potential Human turns into an Actual Human. Abortion before that point in time is doing nothing more than scraping away a collection of cells. Living? Yes. A person? No.

When it comes to abortions of the latter type where it is the destruction of a person, it becomes a judgment call between which person has the greater right - the woman or the fetus. That is something that a doctor and the woman need to decide.

[sangh0]

231. She was responding to outinforce

and not you.

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[outinforce]

232. "Medically" We Can Determine?!?!?!?

"Medically we can determine that there is a general point in time when this transformation occurs, when the Potential Human turns into an Actual Human"

We can?

How?

[LuminousX]

249. Quite simple

Ask your doctor.

"Dr. what will this fetus's chance of survival be if removed from the womb right now?"

If it is one week after conception - the answer will be 0%.
If it is 8 months after conception - the answer will be somewhere in the 90%.

[outinforce]

263. All That Does

is say that a fetus can continue to exist outside the womb.

It says nothing about when "potential human" becomes "real human".

[sangh0]

265. The law doesn't care about "potential human" or "real human"

The law is concerned with the rights of persons.

[outinforce]

274. Well, Duh

what's you point, Daffy?

[sangh0]

278. You are wrong and it's unconstitutional to kill babies

and immoral

[outinforce]

287. Of Course It Is Wrong, Daphne

Who ever said that it was right to kill babies, Daphne?

Certainly not me.

Why are you lecturing me and hectoring me about this?

I have never said that it was right or moral to kill babies.

What I have said is that I am of the view that parents should have the right to choose to abort fetuses after they leave the womb.

And I have also said that I do not consider "personhood" to be achieved until some time after a fetus leaves the womb. And I have also said that I do not consider non-persons to be babies.

I have alsl made it clear that I think the law needs to chance in order to expand the rights of parents.

You seem to have some sort of problem with all of this.

Please understand that I would never actually advocate that parents actually abort their fetuses once they leave the womb. All I am adovcating is that they should have the right to choose to do so, if they wish to do so.

If you have a problem with any of this, here is auggestion -- if you don't like post-womb abortions, then just DON"T HAVE ONE.

Deal, Daphne?

[redqueen]

261. Well

Since you responded to me, and nobody has responded to either of my other two posts on this thread, I'll just jump in.

You say that in later term abortions there are two people whose rights need to be considered. I agree with you that far. Then you go the extra step of saying that only the doctor and the mother need to be involved in the decision. While I agree that that should be sufficient, I know that not everyone agrees, and I don't know that it will hold up in court. Eventually I think it is the courts that will probably end up settling this, not us.

[kiahzero]

208. Voted mind that matters, because it's closest to my beliefs

I believe that personhood begins when those qualities that distinguish a person from a lump of organic matter (ie, the cerebral cortex) emerge.

[Jack_DeLeon]

282. I think abortion is wrong but...

I wouldnt ban it.

In general it would be better if people just used more birth control, and if you are going to have an abortion its better to have it sooner than later.

I consider myself a Catholic, and while an aborted baby doesnt get baptised or anything like that I seriously doubt the babies soul gets sent to hell.

If that was the case hell would be damn full of plenty of babies that died in childbirth or at a young age throughout the years.

IMO a child/baby that is either killed or murdered either goes to heaven or purgatory for a while then to heaven.

[quaker bill]

290. I tend to look less at the fetus and more at the mother

The conditions that put a wonam in the position where she has to make this choice are the problem. Whether it is pressure to have sex or the economic structure that puts single moms at a severe disadvantage. A society that values life would be more concerned about sustaining the mother and child together than it would be over limiting her choices.

We do not live in such a place.

[Carolina]

291. You need to focus more on

What do bombs do?
What do guns do?

To born, living, breathing, thinking, feeling beings!