Choice

[cammerfe]

Because I believe very strongly that no one has the right to tell me what to do, I must also believe that I have no right to tell anyone else how to act. My rights are absolute, and they stop at the end of your nose. And vice versa. One can't exist without the other.

Just as an acorn isn't an oak tree, a fetus isn't a baby. And repetition doesn't make it so. DNA gives the 'formula' for a specific life. DNA can be taken from a hair or a nail clipping. Are we to believe that these are sacred also?

I don't believe in abortion for convenience. But we approach a slippery slope when we try to dictate to shallow folk what they do with themselves. If they can't dictate to me, I can't dictate to them. JMO
KS

 

[Calabrio]

Your Acorn analogy is not applicable.
First of all, a tree isn't a conscious being.
Second, tree don't gestate in a womb.

The question isn't just what rights does the government have to dictate the behavior of individuals, it also has to do with the obligation of government to protect innocent lives. If a person is a live, why are they not provided the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

When does a "fetus" become alive?
Conception, heartbeat, viability? Arbitrary date determined by "trimesters"? The breaching of a body party outside the birth mother? And if so, why is that the moment you've chosen.

 

[fossten]

Because I believe very strongly that no one has the right to tell me what to do, I must also believe that I have no right to tell anyone else how to act. My rights are absolute, and they stop at the end of your nose. And vice versa. One can't exist without the other.

Just as an acorn isn't an oak tree, a fetus isn't a baby. And repetition doesn't make it so. DNA gives the 'formula' for a specific life. DNA can be taken from a hair or a nail clipping. Are we to believe that these are sacred also?

I don't believe on abortion for convenience. But we approach a slippery slope when we try to dictate to shallow folk what they do with themselves. If they can't dictate to me, I can't dictate to them. JMO
KS

"A fetus isn't a baby" was decided by lawyers who are completely unqualified to make such a determination. The medical field has since demonstrated the opposite to be true. It's a scientific fact.

If a fetus isn't a baby, what is it?

You can see a baby's heartbeat on a sonagram at 8 weeks, just a few weeks after a woman knows she's pregnant.

 

[Aquabrit]

I don't believe on abortion for convenience.

I agree on this part.

 

[cammerfe]

Definition

Government has no 'obligation to protect...' See DeShaney 489 US 189 (1989)

Look up 'fetus' and 'baby' in any good dictionary. Although the definitions are similar, they aren't the same.

I'd put it this way---"A fetus is a potential baby". A baby has been born and has achieved a degree of individual viability. A fetus is a collection of cells on the way to becoming an individual---a state not yet achieved. Since we are in process of moving this point of viability, it behooves us to err on the side of caution. But a tadpole is not a frog. It's a potential frog.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

Government has no 'obligation to protect...' See DeShaney 489 US 189 (1989)

Look up 'fetus' and 'baby' in any good dictionary. Although the definitions are similar, they aren't the same.

I'd put it this way---"A fetus is a potential baby". A baby has been born and has achieved a degree of individual viability. A fetus is a collection of cells on the way to becoming an individual---a state not yet achieved. Since we are in process of moving this point of viability, it behooves us to err on the side of caution. But a tadpole is not a frog. It's a potential frog.
KS

This debate boils down to weather or not a fetus is a life. Semantics concerning the differing use of the terms "fetus" and "baby" are rather tangential and serve to distract from the issue.

If a fetus is a life, then the pro-choice side doesn't have a leg to stand on because the government is obligated to protect life and, more importantly, a society needs to hold life sacred to be a civil society. If a fetus is not a life, there is a legitimate pro-choice argument to be made.

So the question becomes; who decides what qualifies as life? 9 unelected (and unqualified) judges? Scientists creating arbitrary standards? legislators creating politically motivated arbitrary standards?

 

[cammerfe]

Tadpoles are 'life' and so are acorns. Of course a fetus is 'life' but it is only potentially a human being. I'd be more concerned with actual human beings than I would that which is only potentially so. And although for most reasons abortion is not for me, I also recognize that because I'm not equipped to carry, my position must take a back seat to those who must bear the burden.
KS

 

[fossten]

Of course a fetus is 'life'

You have a big problem. You just admitted a fetus is life.

How can you advocate extinguishing life?

The obvious follow up question is, what kind of life is it - can it be anything but human life?

At what point in gestation does a fetus become a baby?

 

[shagdrum]

Tadpoles are 'life' and so are acorns

They don't have certain natural rights that extend from being created in God's image; like a right to life...

Of course a fetus is 'life' but it is only potentially a human being.

Distinction without difference. Redefining what qualifies as a "human" in this debate is the same as redefining what qualifies as "life"; it is a completely arbitrary and self-serving distinction.

If a fetus is a life then it is a human life. It is no more a "potential" human life then a 5 year old kid is a "potential" human life.

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

I LOOK AT IT LIKE THIS "JUST SUPPOSE SOMEONE WOULD HAVE DECIDED YOUR LIFE WASN'T REALLY NECESSARY AND FLUSHED YOU."
However I also believe we could make a better job of teaching our children not to have children while they are children. That happened to me.
I also believe that back in the 60's when the PHARMA companies developed the birth control pill they could've made a male one but were told not to for population reasons. That alone would have saved my late teen years because I got a girl 7 yrs. older than me pregnant,,ruined marriage a few years later,two children. I always felt trapped. It wrecked all our lives. She knew the score and I didn't. 12yrs. of hell. I STILL THINK THEY COULD MAKE A MALE BIRTH CONTROL PILL,BUT THEY WON'T. Thanks for reading my thoughts.

 

[cammerfe]

Diddling with semantics may be fun but seems only to lead to going around in circles. Roaches are 'life' but I have been known to step on them. If a collection of cells, human in origin, is to be considered somehow sacred, then the integumentary system must be as sacred as any other part. We now know that there is a complete 'formula' for a fully-formed human being within each cell, no matter where that cell was in the body. Yet we don't stop brushing our hair for fear of pulling out a hair root.

Society has NEVER treated a fetus as a human being. The result of a miscarriage has never needed to be given a funeral and burial such as we afford to an infant. Emotionally speaking, such a miscarriage may cause a period of grief. But the loss is signally different than what is expected after a death.

We could go round and round on this. I have great respect for those of you who have been raising objections in this thread. But my basic premise still stands. A fetus is a POTENTIAL human being. There IS a difference.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

If a collection of cells, human in origin, is to be considered somehow sacred, then the integumentary system must be as sacred as any other part.

A part of a whole is not the same as a whole...

Your claim here also seems to reject the assumption that the specific collection of cells that make up an embryo is a human life. Like the earlier metaphysical debate with hrmwrm that is an assumption that you need to justify. The basic assumptions in this area are where the debate starts

Society has NEVER treated a fetus as a human being.

So expecting mothers typically refer to the "fetus" (as opposed to the "baby") in their belly?

But my basic premise still stands. A fetus is a POTENTIAL human being. There IS a difference.

Your basic premise is a rhetorical assertion left standing in need of justification (no small task). Until you can meet that burden of proof, no premise stands. You need to show that it is something more then a rhetorical distinction without difference.

 

[foxpaws]

The constitution allows rights upon birth or naturalization - not upon conception, or any point between conception and birth. That would cause a legal nightmare. "Little Johnny was conceived on my trip to Miami judge, so he should be allowed US citizenship and rights. Of course that was 45 years ago - but see here is the airline ticket and hotel receipt that proves I was in Miami 8-1/2 months before he was born (he was 2 weeks early)."

Locke certainly includes 'born' as a precondition to life liberty and property... not conceived.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
and
Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it.

Locke knew of the biological progression from conception to birth - and yet, birth was the point where rights and privileges of the law of nature began.

Adams included it in the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Jefferson also used 'born' as a qualifier..

Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.

George Mason included it in the Virginia Declaration of Rights

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive, or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and Obtaining Happiness and Safety.

Ben Franklin went with 'born' for Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Abortions have been around for centuries - and certainly were available at the time of the founding fathers and Locke, and were not punished as a criminal act. Rights, unalienable ones, started at birth, not at conception. None of them used 'all men are conceived with certain rights'.

Shag, judges decide on cases all the time where they are 'unqualified'. Do they really understand the hazardous properties of radioactive waste? Are they doctors and do they really comprehend the nuances of the health effects of formaldehyde? Yet they routinely decide cases where those issues are in play.

Who should decide Shag when life begins? You asked the question - no doubt you have an answer.

 

[cammerfe]

What women call their unborn is of no matter to me. It's been said that most of the English speakers in this world get by with a vocabulary of only about 500 words. For a significant part of the population, most of the words they use are crudities, perhaps even scatological. I don't feel bound by what others say. And although I guess I invited comment, what is above is MY position. I didn't really suppose I'd change many minds. You are, of course, free to hold any position to which you feel led.
KS

 

[jhargarage]

All I know is whatever you believe, in 1977 girlfriend who became wife and I went thru an abortion and here 33 years later it still bothers me every day.

 

[hrmwrm]

Like the earlier metaphysical debate with hrmwrm that is an assumption that you need to justify

yet again, i did. just because you won't accept it and think your views should be held by all doesn't make you right.

Your claim here also seems to reject the assumption that the specific collection of cells that make up an embryo is a human life.

it is not human life. as cammerfe said, it is potential human life. you have no way of knowing what the outcome is until the day of birth.

 

[hrmwrm]

Because I believe very strongly that no one has the right to tell me what to do, I must also believe that I have no right to tell anyone else how to act. My rights are absolute, and they stop at the end of your nose. And vice versa. One can't exist without the other.

i believe it strongly as well, except when ones "rights" start to interfere with freedoms of others.(you know, thieves, murderers, religious right, etc)

 

[fossten]

Brain waves can be measured at 40 days.

Today we declare someone to be legally dead when his brain waves cease. So if the end of brain waves marks the legal end of life, the start of brain waves should mark the legal start of life.

Anybody who tries to deny that a fetus is a human life is merely trying to justify a murderous act and is not thinking rationally. It's so obvious. It takes mental gymnastics to think otherwise.

 

[Calabrio]

Government has no 'obligation to protect...' See DeShaney 489 US 189 (1989)

Your example is completely irrelevant and does not address the point made.

Look up 'fetus' and 'baby' in any good dictionary. Although the definitions are similar, they aren't the same.

That would be obvious, but it fails to address any of the points or challenges posed.

I'd put it this way---"A fetus is a potential baby".

And I think most of us would uniformly agree that babies deserve the protection of government and society. That infanticide should be illegal.

The question is, when does a fetus become a living individual entitled to the pursuit of their life, liberty, and happiness.
Not necessarily "a baby."

A baby has been born and has achieved a degree of individual viability. A fetus is a collection of cells on the way to becoming an individual---a state not yet achieved.

I will repeat my question-
at what point do this "cells" become an individual?
What precise moment.

Since we are in process of moving this point of viability, it behooves us to err on the side of caution. But a tadpole is not a frog. It's a potential frog.
KS

No, but while I hate this strained analogy here, I'll use it-
A tadpole is a frog, just at the early stage of it's development.
And more importantly, a tadpole certainly is alive.

But tadpole's aren't self aware, they aren't human...

 

[foxpaws]

Brain waves can be measured at 40 days.

Today we declare someone to be legally dead when his brain waves cease. So if the end of brain waves marks the legal end of life, the start of brain waves should mark the legal start of life.

Anybody who tries to deny that a fetus is a human life is merely trying to justify a murderous act and is not thinking rationally. It's so obvious. It takes mental gymnastics to think otherwise.

So - 40 days Foss - you believe that an abortion that is performed within that window - from conception until 40 days - isn't taking a 'life'?

And how do explain in the Bible we are born again in Christ - not conceived again. Wouldn't it be important to start at the beginning of life, not at some arbitrary point like 'birth', if life should be defined at starting at some point other than birth. However, throughout the Bible both birth and the taking of our first breath has special meaning - the beginning - 'life'.

And Cal - if we state 'life' to begin at some point before birth-don't we have to amend the constitution to reflect this?

 

[Calabrio]

And how do explain in the Bible we are born again in Christ - not conceived again.

Are you interjecting religion into a an argument defending greater abortion access?

Wouldn't it be important to start at the beginning of life, not at some arbitrary point like 'birth', if life should be defined at starting at some point other than birth.

Like brain wave, heart beat, ect?

However, throughout the Bible both birth and the taking of our first breath has special meaning - the beginning - 'life'.

So does the Bible say it's o.k. to pull a late term "fetus" out feet first only to puncture it's head before it has the ability to take a breath outside the womb?

The first breath does have special meaning- but that doesn't mean, nor imply, that there aren't special meaningful moments before that.

And Cal - if we state 'life' to begin at some point before birth-don't we have to amend the constitution to reflect this?

Not for any reason I can think of.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you interjecting religion into a an argument defending greater abortion access?


Like brain wave, heart beat, ect?


So does the Bible say it's o.k. to pull a late term "fetus" out feet first only to puncture it's head before it has the ability to take a breath outside the womb?

The first breath does have special meaning- but that doesn't mean, nor imply, that there aren't special meaningful moments before that.


Not for any reason I can think of.

Cal - the idea that 'life' begins at some point before birth is a fairly new concept. Partially because of science, we can now see and monitor the fetus. However, for most of our history 'life' and all that it entails began at birth, our first breath.

The bible doesn't really ever address abortion directly-however it does state that the penalty for causing a miscarriage was a monetary fine - not the penalty of 'eye for an eye'.

The 14th amendment very clearly states that citizenship - and the protections of the constitution are afforded to those that are born in the US or naturalized. There are no constitutional protections to anything else - such as fetuses.

 

[shagdrum]

Rights, unalienable ones, started at birth, not at conception. None of them used 'all men are conceived with certain rights'.

Not ONE of the people you quote ever made any distinction between life before birth and life after birth. In all those quotes, they are referencing birth because at that time, it was typically understood as the start of life. Abortion was NOT commonplace and not a consideration. There is absolutely no way to know how they would view this issue. To impose today's understanding on what they said is to take them out of context.

Shag, judges decide on cases all the time where they are 'unqualified'.

...and that makes it right?

the idea that 'life' begins at some point before birth is a fairly new concept. Partially because of science, we can now see and monitor the fetus. However, for most of our history 'life' and all that it entails began at birth, our first breath.

widespread abortions and, specifically, abortions of convenience are also a rather new occurrence (feminist propaganda aside).

 

[foxpaws]

Not ONE of the people you quote ever made any distinction between life before birth and life after birth. In all those quotes, they are referencing birth because at that time, it was typically understood as the start of life. Abortion was NOT commonplace and not a consideration. There is absolutely no way to know how they would view this issue. To impose today's understanding on what they said is to take them out of context.

Not perhaps as common as today - but certainly known of, and not criminalized, and not 'uncommon'. There isn't any way to know how they would think on this issue-just as there isn't any way to know how they would view many current day issues. So, you believe that you can alter the constitution to reflect current day understanding of certain issues? According to you it sounds like you would like to 'interpret' the founding fathers on this issue.

...and that makes it right?

How many cases do you think that come before judges that the judge is 'qualified' in the matter at hand - very, very few. If this is your barometer shag, we would need a battery of justices that would try cases only within their areas of 'expertise'. That isn't how our courts are set up. The prosecutors and the defendants present their cases, and the judge decides an outcome based on those presentations. That decision is not based on the judge's expertise in the matter at hand.

widespread abortions and, specifically, abortions of convenience are also a rather new occurrence (feminist propaganda aside).

Not really - prostitutes have been practicing abortions for thousands of years - and those have certainly been abortions of convenience, they interfered with work.

 

[shagdrum]

Not perhaps as common as today - but certainly known of, and not criminalized, and not 'uncommon'.

Then prove it. This sounds to me like something overblown to promote a feminist agenda; likely based on a "recounting" of history from a Howard Zinn type source.

Prove it. Provide links, sources, whatever you need to. Simply making a rhetorical assertion doesn't cut it.

How many cases do you think that come before judges that the judge is 'qualified' in the matter at hand - very, very few. If this is your barometer shag, we would need a battery of justices that would try cases only within their areas of 'expertise'. That isn't how our courts are set up.

What is a judge's expertise in?

Not really - prostitutes have been practicing abortions for thousands of years - and those have certainly been abortions of convenience, they interfered with work.

So, by that logic, the framers wanted prostitution to be legal? They certainly didn't mention it in the constitution and I haven't run across any comment by them saying it should be illegal.