Fetal Rights

[Nija]

Prompted by this article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/920645.asp?cp1=1)

I did the little live survey on the side, these are the results

What legal rights should fetuses have?
* 36282 responses
The same rights accorded children and adults
67%
The same rights, but only after they are viable outside the womb
21%
None until they're born (this is what I voted for)
12%

Fairly well written article. It's got some length. Towards the end you can see that the Bush administation is trying to totally undermine Roe v. Wade, which isn't cool.

My personal opinion, is that Abortion is the parent's choice, but ultimitaly <sp> the mother's choice. Fetus' are just that until they are born, when they become human's. There are probably some more, but I can't think of them.

What are your opinions
(try to at least read the article first ;) )

[speedracer120]

Like the article says, the argument isn't as simple as it was before, especially with stem cell research being publicized.

[Speedfreak]

I have always said that they have none until they are born. I am always pro-choice. It is the women's body and if they want to get rid of the thing inside then that is her choice. If not, that's cool, too. If people say that it is alive before born, then be better change our birth date because that is what we use to say when the start of our life was.

[johnnymk]

What about preemies?

Why do women care about what they eat or drink or what drugs they take while pregnant?

If they are just blobs or some kind of moving mass while they are in the mother's womb, then the pro-death movement could have some arguments.

The birth date is just a technicality, anyway.

[topane]

My opinion (which may or may not match your own :P):

A fetus is at first a mass of cells. A "blob" might be an odd way of looking at it, but that's basically what it is. As development continues, there's a point where the fetus becomes viable - where it could exist outside the womb on its own.

If a woman is intending to have the child, then someone taking that away from her without her consent is a criminal. I wouldn't necessarily call it murder unless it was after a certain point in her pregnancy (fetus is viable).

Personally, I don't think abortion is right after a fetus is viable unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has an obvious and severe problem. IIRC, there are very few late-term abortions performed (something like 1%), so most of these occur earlier, with the overwhelming majority in the first trimester.

[ski]

I think that many people forget to treat birth as a completely different concept from any other issue. It's a big thing -- it's creating life, and you can't do that from materials or technology... sure, you can clone and have test tube babies, but it requires an aspect of human life to make it possible.

It's gotta be looked at differently than the standpoint of other things you do to your body, like drugs, alcohol, etc ("it's my body, whateva, whateva, I do what I want! <cartman voice> :)) I'm not pro-choice and I'm not strongly pro-life, I just think that peeps should look at birth as something completely unique, because that's what it is!

Then again, it doesn't help that sex has lost it's values over the years... I'm 20 and people can't understand what I good lookin guy like me is doin as a virgin :P I'm a dying breed! hahah...

The only real pro-choice thing I have to say is imagine if you were in your mama's womb (keep in mind that you are imagining as you are right now, since you can't think as a fetus), even as a fetus, you wouldn't exist today if she had you aborted! If she would have had you, and not wanted to take care of you or couldn't, you woulda been raised by someone else, but you'd be here today posting on G|A :D

[hoey222]

i thought a FETUS was viable - that's the whole point.

a blastocyst - mass of cells - becomes an embryo - becomes a fetus

[faither]

Technically, an embryo becomes a fetus at eight weeks. Not yet viable. While I am personally against abortion in cases other than where the mother's life is in danger or gross-malformation of the fetus, I believe in a woman's right to choose. Either way, even though others may be affected by the decision, she is the person that has to live with the consequence of any decision made.

That said, I believe that fetal rights should be extended once the fetus is viable. While there's no concensus on when that is, I'd say approximately 23-24 weeks.

[Joshua]

If you're against abortion, don't have one.

[WhiskeyPapa]

If you're against murder, don't kill someone.
If you're against robbery, don't steal stuff.
If you're against...

That has got to be one of the most ignorant pro-abortion agruments I have ever heard. I wonder why it's still used.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
If you're against murder, don't kill someone.
If you're against robbery, don't steal stuff.
If you're against...

That has got to be one of the most ignorant pro-abortion agruments I have ever heard. I wonder why it's still used.

it's not the same thing. it's not ignorant. killing your own fetus isn't the greatest thing in the world, but it's just not something it's okay to completely forbid.

see, it's not jsut a matter of a fetus in a vacuum - does this fetus get to live or die? if the question was so simple, the answer would also be simple - that all fetuses have the right to live.

but a fetus is in a womb. sometimes the interests of the fetus are in direct conflict with the interests of the woman carrying it. there are a variety of reasons for not wanting to carry a fetus. to carry a fetus to term has permanent, often drastic effects on a woman's health. should a 200-lb woman with diabetes be forced to carry an accidentally conceived fetus? they could both die. even if they don't, she could wreck several organ systems permanently. if she doesn't want to spend the rest of her shortened life on dialysis, that's up to her. she has family who loves her, and they deserve to have her alive. that's a direct conflice with the fetus's rights. it's not a fun decision, but it's HER decision. here's hoping you're never in such a tough spot.

and that's not just some wierd example. there are hundreds of other sticky spots. rape, the mother being too young, the mother's current health, etc.

now let me lean a bit to the other side of the fence... this is the one and only time in my life i have EVER agreed with george f. will, the pre-eminent republican nutball...

does a woman who enters an abortion clinic have the right to a dead fetus? what if the fetus could be saved? that's (remotely) possible at 22 weeks... if she's demanding a legal abortion at 22 weeks, is it wrong for the doctor performing the procedure to make it a BIRTH rather than an abortion?

i just spent two weeks hanging out in an nicu. there are 1-lb babies, 15-lb babies, drug-addicted babies in there. they will never have a chance at a normal life. is it okay to condemn them to a lifetime consisting only of years inside a body that can't see, can't feed itself, can't interact meaningfully with others, experiences excruciating pain at every bowel movement, every burp, is constantly full of tubes and needles?

my car has three carseats in the backseat and a sticker on the back that says "keep abortion legal."

[raimin]

ther's also the issue with the Scott Peterson trial here in the Bay Area... He is charged with 2 counts of murder, for the wife and the unborn son




A day later, NOW's Mavra Stark questioned the move on grounds it recognized the fetus as a live human being. "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Stark, NOW's Morris County, N.J., president, told The Daily Record of Morristown. A barrage of negative publicity over Stark's comments led NOW's national headquarters to issue a blanket "no comment," citing consideration to the family.

At the same time, abortion foes were applauding the double-murder charge. Even the White House got involved. Shortly after Scott Peterson's arrest, spokesman Ari Fleischer said President George W. Bush supported the double-murder charge. "The president does believe that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims," Fleischer said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usfet093303961may28,0,6173125.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

[attgig]

Originally posted by raimin
ther's also the issue with the Scott Peterson trial here in the Bay Area... He is charged with 2 counts of murder, for the wife and the unborn son


finally someone brings it up...

that's what the original article was kinda focusing on no?

is it ok to charge peterson with 2 counts of murder, if abortion isn't murder?

or, even with the pro-choice person's suggestion of "awkwardly argues in favor of alternative laws that would add harsh penalties for attacking pregnant women—up to 20 years for harming a pregnancy and a life sentence for ending it. "

why is a pregnant woman so special that we should levy heavier penalties against their attackers?

it becomes a more interesting argument when this side of the abortion issue is discussed. straight up abortion 'discussions' have been done...

btw, welfare...yeah, your (other) arguments are valid...but the whole..."if you're against abortion, don't have one"....is kinda stupid. That won't convince me, or any other 'pro-lifer' that they should leave the issue alone.

[molecularfire]

To be honest, I've never really understood the abortion issue. I've argued both sides when I was younger, and at some time or another have been pro-choice and pro-life. Now... I've just decided that both sides will never agree because it's no longer a logical debate. Different people draw the line at life, and rights at different places, and until we can agree on some way to standardize that, we'll never be able to solve the problem. It's an emotional argument, and emotional arguments have the ability to be non-consistent with logic. I'm going to argue the pro-life side because well... the coin landed on tails... so here are some things that never made much sense to me.

The problems that I have with pro-choice people are that:
1) A lot of them do believe that if you kill a pregnant woman, you should be tried for two deaths (I guess that isn't too bad if you use the argument that it's the mom's choice, and you're taking that away from her, but then that assumes that the fetus is a life and that the mother has an inherent right to kill the fetus... of course, then why don't they support parents killing their children after birth).
2) A lot of them still disapprove of women who use crack, heroin, etc... while they're pregnant. If the fetus isn't alive, then she isn't really harming anyone who has any rights yet. If the fetus is alive and the mother has some inherent right to kill it, then why doesn't the mother have an inherent right to hurt it... Also, this brings us back to the why don't parents have the right to kill their children (not that I'm condoning this... but it is a logical step if you're using the argument that the fetus is alive and that the mom has some inherent right to kill it).
There are others, but these are the first two to pop into my head and I'm trying to keep this from getting too long.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by welfareloser
but a fetus is in a womb. sometimes the interests of the fetus are in direct conflict with the interests of the woman carrying it.
this is, to me, the reason that the abortion debate is so difficult.

in most ways, i'm anti-abortion. i have a very hard time making justification for the removal of life from what is clearly human.

but if you look at it from a natural rights perspective (which is the basis of our declaration of independence), it's hard to say that women shouldn't have the right to choose.

on one hand, natural rights indicate that the fetus should have the right to life that any other human has. but on the other hand, the mother has the right to control of her own body.

typically, exercising your right of self-determination is prohibited under natural law if it damages the life/health of another human ("my right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins"). but in this case, the continuation of life of the fetus can cause damage to the life/health of the mother (particularly if we include emotional/psychological health).

so it's a conflict that i can't really see an easy way out of. protection of the rights of the fetus can preclude the protection of the rights of the mother, and vice versa.

in the meantime, i think the best compromise is to encourage the use of birth control and responsible sexual behaviors in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by attgig
btw, welfare...yeah, your (other) arguments are valid...but the whole..."if you're against abortion, don't have one"....is kinda stupid. That won't convince me, or any other 'pro-lifer' that they should leave the issue alone.

snotrocket said that, <revil>because he is an ass</revil>

[InfiniteNothing]

No, he has a point. There is a diffrence between protesting abortion and trying to change the law so no one can have an abortion.

For example, I'd never have an abortion and would advise my friends not to but I would never take away a womans right to have one.

I think the argument goes that abortion is a personal choice and if you are against it, you don't have to have one. You have no right to inflict your morals on another person unless it protects someone. The argument makes the assumption that a baby is not living and therefore, since an abortion does not harm anyone, the law has no jurisdiction.

Another good argument against abortion is that it protects women. Women who do not have acess to clinics may injure themselves performing an abortion and here no one wins. I think anyone would prefer a women having an abortion to her injuring herself and aborting a fetus. And also it protects women for whom it would be dangerous to procede with the full 9 months.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by whitak24

in the meantime, i think the best compromise is to encourage the use of birth control and responsible sexual behaviors in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.

So aborting an embryo is somehow better than aborting a fetus? I think we find birth control and abortion pills less appalling because it's less gorry.
I have alot of trouble drawing a line between living and existing. I mean how do we classify living. Is it in potential because a baby has no pontential if a mother is set on getting rid of it. Also, if it's by pontenial removing someone in a coma off of life support is murder because they COULD come back. I've seen it defined as a complete set of DNA. But death becomes kinda funny by that definition. Also things like hair start coming to life. You can't define it as a heart beat because bacteria and plants live without one. Defining life as some step in development (ie implantation, x number of cells, moving) is arbitrary. There must be an underlying reason for our choice. So what is living?

[ski]

You know, it would be so much easier to draw a "decision" (if such a thing exists here) if there were a similar event to it. Murder doesn't question the victim's rights, because it's agreeable that the victim is human. Darnit! I just wish all of these gonads and strife would end.

Oh, anyone seen this one website that shows gross pictures of aborted babies? Next to that ******cx site, it was enough to make me never want to think about abortion again... little babie's body parts in wastebaskets... uggggggh!

[whitak24]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
So aborting an embryo is somehow better than aborting a fetus? I think we find birth control and abortion pills less appalling because it's less gorry.
I have alot of trouble drawing a line between living and existing. I mean how do we classify living. Is it in potential because a baby has no pontential if a mother is set on getting rid of it. Also, if it's by pontenial removing someone in a coma off of life support is murder because they COULD come back. I've seen it defined as a complete set of DNA. But death becomes kinda funny by that definition. Also things like hair start coming to life. You can't define it as a heart beat because bacteria and plants live without one. Defining life as some step in development (ie implantation, x number of cells, moving) is arbitrary. There must be an underlying reason for our choice. So what is living?
i guess i don't understand your argument. i have no problem with killing poor little sperm cells :heh:

birth control pills are not abortion pills. nor are emergency contraceptives abortion pills. there are significant differences (most importantly, birth controls and emergency contraceptives prevent a pregnancy from happening, while abortion pills end a pregnancy that has already started.)

[whitak24]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
No, he has a point. There is a diffrence between protesting abortion and trying to change the law so no one can have an abortion.

For example, I'd never have an abortion and would advise my friends not to but I would never take away a womans right to have one.

I think the argument goes that abortion is a personal choice and if you are against it, you don't have to have one. You have no right to inflict your morals on another person unless it protects someone. The argument makes the assumption that a baby is not living and therefore, since an abortion does not harm anyone, the law has no jurisdiction.

Another good argument against abortion is that it protects women. Women who do not have acess to clinics may injure themselves performing an abortion and here no one wins. I think anyone would prefer a women having an abortion to her injuring herself and aborting a fetus. And also it protects women for whom it would be dangerous to procede with the full 9 months.
i would disagree. he doesn't really have a point.

well, maybe he has a point, but he has nothing resembling a valid argument.

saying "if you don't support abortions, don't have one" is simply a reflection of one line of thought re: abortions. that is, it's the "i don't personally support abortions but i wouldn't want to deny someone else's right to have one."

that's fine, but saying that does absolutely nothing to counter the argument of people who contend that abortion should be illegal. if you believe that the right of the baby to live should trump the mother's right to self-determination (which i think is a perfectly valid view and easily supported by logic), then it is not only acceptable to try to outlaw abortions, but morally imperative.

now as i said earlier, i'm torn on the issue, because i can just as easily see how one can logically support the argument that the mother's right of self-determination trumps the right of the baby to live.

but stupid comments like "if you don't like abortions, then don't have one" adds no more to an intelligent discourse on the subject than the bumper sticker i saw the other day which said "i think, therefore i am pro-life".

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by whitak24

i would disagree. he doesn't really have a point.

well, maybe he has a point, but he has nothing resembling a valid argument.

saying "if you don't support abortions, don't have one" is simply a reflection of one line of thought re: abortions. that is, it's the "i don't personally support abortions but i wouldn't want to deny someone else's right to have one."

that's fine, but saying that does absolutely nothing to counter the argument of people who contend that abortion should be illegal. if you believe that the right of the baby to live should trump the mother's right to self-determination (which i think is a perfectly valid view and easily supported by logic), then it is not only acceptable to try to outlaw abortions, but morally imperative.

I agree and disagree. Yes it doesn't really make an argument but I think one is implied.
The argument counters the arguments that abortion should be illegal because of moral reasons.

And about birth control one of the ways it works is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. TheIt's not just sperm dying it's an up to 100 cell potential human. So she's pregnant and there's a potential life it just isn't for very long.

[topane]

Originally posted by whitak24
in the meantime, i think the best compromise is to encourage the use of birth control and responsible sexual behaviors in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies as much as possible. :stupid: (Don't I always say that about you, Whitak?)

Absolutely. People are going to screw and there's no way around that. Teenagers are full of raging hormones and no matter how hard anyone tries, the majority of them are going to have sex. Teaching responsibility and safe sex practices would go a long way in preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I'm sure someone will point out that the only 100% safe contraceptive is abstinence. While that is true, it is also unrealistic. Humans are driven by the same urges and instincts as other animals in that we reach sexual maturity and have the biological desire to procreate. It's natural. That and it feels damn good, too :P.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I agree and disagree. Yes it doesn't really make an argument but I think one is implied.
The argument counters the arguments that abortion should be illegal because of moral reasons.
i still disagree :P

it does not counter the argument that abortion should be illegal for moral reasons (i could get nit-picky here and say that whether you say abortion should be legal or illegal, it's always a "moral" reason :D)

saying that it abortion is a personal right that should be protected, without showing why the rights of the fetus should be disregarded is as illogical (in my opinion) as saying that murder is a personal choice and should be accepted.

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
And about birth control one of the ways it works is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. TheIt's not just sperm dying it's an up to 100 cell potential human. So she's pregnant and there's a potential life it just isn't for very long.
first of all, it depends on what kind of birth control you're talking about. i presume that you're referring to "the pill" -- things such as ortho-tri-cyclin, etc.

one of the ways that these birth control methods works is by making the lining of the uterus less receptive to the implantation of a fertilized egg. however, the primary impact of these pills is to supress ovulation, which prevents eggs from being implanted in the first place.

for me, i don't regard a fertilized, implanted egg as deserving of protection. i may be on shaky logical ground here -- i'll admit it. but my understanding is that it's not all together uncommon for fertilized eggs to not implant and leave the body naturally during the menstural cycle. taking a pill that makes this more likely to happen is not objectionable to me.

i would view a fertilized egg like a seed. both will grow, into a human or a plant, if planted in the proper location. but if you throw a seed on the sidewalk, you aren't killing a plant. you're preventing a plant from ever taking root. it's the same with a fertilized egg -- until it's implanted and drawing nutrients, it's not a person. it just has the potential to be a person, in the same way a random egg and a random sperm have the potential to be a person, if they meet and are then implanted.

i guess i take this view because i think you have to draw the line somewhere, and i definitely do not follow the catholic line of reasoning that every sperm and every egg are sacred. so to me, the most logical place seems to be the point where the egg has a chance to grow into a person.

[InfiniteNothing]

I think there are obvious reasons why a fetus would not have rights.

Yes, I'm assuming we are talking about the pill. I'm very curious about an argument againt condoms. I hope you see the obvious difference between a seed and a fertilized egg. It's not like this seed is just floating around in air, it's well into the ground at this point. What does it matter if it's drawing in nutrients. You're right it's not uncommon for a fertilized egg to implant but miscarriages are not uncommon either.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I think there are obvious reasons why a fetus would not have rights.
and those would be?.....

seriously. i'm still trying to figure out these issues, and i'd like to hear your POV

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I'm very curious about an argument againt condoms.
the only argument i know of is the "catholic" argument, which, roughly stated, is that sex is a sacred act intended by God to be undertaken for the purpose of producing children. therefore, any method of thwarting this reproductive purpose is counter to God's intent and therefore immoral.[/B][/QUOTE]


but it's not an argument I would make. i support birth control.

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I hope you see the obvious difference between a seed and a fertilized egg. It's not like this seed is just floating around in air, it's well into the ground at this point. What does it matter if it's drawing in nutrients. You're right it's not uncommon for a fertilized egg to [fail to] implant but miscarriages are not uncommon either.
you make some good points against my seed/egg analogy. i just came up with it, so it's quite possibly stupid. but, at least at this point, i still see the point of implantation as being a key milestone in the formation of a human.