The rights of an unborn fetus

[WinePusher]

Abortion is probably the most contreversial issue in World, everybody has their own opinion about it. Most christians are opposed to the practice mainly because of their religious beliefs, but I would like to point out Christopher Hitchens opposes Abortion on purely secular and scientific terms. Questions for disscussion

1) Which is more important, the life of the child or the choice of the mother?

2) Couldn't abortion eventually lead to the practice of infanticide?

3) Does the father of the child have any voice?

4) Do parents have any say if their under age teenage daughter wishes to have an abortion.

[WinePusher]

I think the point is would you Winepusher as an admitted anti tax person be willing to undergo a massive tax hike in order to care for what the antiabortion crowd claim are millions of otherwise aborted children that would be born live every year?

Wow! I never knew I was an anti tax person. Well...you learn something new about yourself everyday! (sarcasm)

You think the government is too big now just imagine how big it would be with millions of wards of the state and the thousands of orphanages they would be housed in.

Why would these orphanages need to be government run? I personally think that the private sector catholic run orphanages are doing fine.

I guess the question that should be asked is where is abortion mentioned at all in the constitution?

Yes, and according to the best Justice (Scalia) on the Supreme Court, there is none.

To use a governmental minimalist perspective If it is not specifically stated in the constitution the government should not have a hand in it which would make it legal. In my mind if you disagree with abortion it would make more sense instead to try to change peoples minds instead of changing the law. Even if you could somehow get abortions illegal again, abortions will still be performed.

They probably will be performed. But I will not continue to support a country where the government permitts the killing of babies.

Perhaps the United States could inquire of the policy of Ireland. Ireland restricts abortions.

[JoeyKnothead]

Perhaps the United States could inquire of the policy of Ireland. Ireland restricts abortions.

Ireland also restricts the right to free speech, in the form of anti-blasphemy laws.

[Gracchus]

Let's get our priorities in order. Before we get all worked up about abortion, let's ask why it is we send people to foreign lands to drop bombs on people of all ages from embryo to geriatric. Should embryos and foetuses have more rights than those who have already been born?

[Cephus]

1) Which is more important, the life of the child or the choice of the mother?

Since it's not a child at the point you're talking about, that's disingenuous. That's no relevant however because until late in the pregnancy, society has not granted a fetus any significant legal rights, therefore it has no objective importance whatsoever. The choice of the mother is therefore infinitely more important.

2) Couldn't abortion eventually lead to the practice of infanticide?

Beyond the fact that this is the slippery slope logical fallacy, no, it couldn't. In fact, it's more likely that restricting abortion would end up with a lot of unwanted children being smothered in their beds "accidentally". Not wanting a child isn't going to magically change, no matter how much you might wish it would.

3) Does the father of the child have any voice?

While there needs to be better protection for a father who doesn't want a child, ultimately, since it's taking place in a woman's body, she's the one that has the final decision. If the man wants a baby, he should have been a woman. In actuality, his choice should have happened before he slept with her to begin with.

4) Do parents have any say if their under age teenage daughter wishes to have an abortion.

Sure. Parents are legally responsible for anything and everything that happens to their minor children, thus they should have plenty of say, but also legal responsibility for what happens. If a parent wants to prevent their child from having an abortion, they ought to also take responsibility for the child having sex in the first place.

[bernee51]

Why would these orphanages need to be government run? I personally think that the private sector catholic run orphanages are doing fine.

Just fine? For whom?

Is these the sort of orphages you are promoting?

They probably will be performed. But I will not continue to support a country where the government permitts the killing of babies.

Neither do I...which government permits the killing of babies?

Perhaps the United States could inquire of the policy of Ireland. Ireland restricts abortions.

Perhaps the US should inquire of the policy of those countries that have much lower teen pregancies and rates of abortion.

It might find that honest and open discussion and EDUCATION in matters of sex and reproduction have a part to play.

[WinePusher]

Just fine? For whom?

For children who have not been aborted and whose mothers do not wish to raise them? What a silly question, who'd you think I was talking about

Is these the sort of orphages you are promoting?

I do not condone the Catholic Church molestations and the church cover-ups. Such orphanages as these should either be closed.

Neither do I...which government permits the killing of babies?

Any government that permitts abortion.

Perhaps the US should inquire of the policy of those countries that have much lower teen pregancies and rates of abortion.

Do you care about a having lower abortion rates? If so, why? If the fetus, in your opinion, is not a viable life, then who cares how many abortions take place.

Are you suggesting that abortions need to be lowered because the fetus is an actual life?

[JohnnyJersey]

Abortion is probably the most contreversial issue in World, everybody has their own opinion about it. Most christians are opposed to the practice mainly because of their religious beliefs, but I would like to point out Christopher Hitchens opposes Abortion on purely secular and scientific terms. Questions for disscussion

For a period of time longer than I care to admit I have been in the camp of "Pro-life based on my religious views but pro-choice from a secular view." In other words, I bought into the myths that a woman's choice should be a driving factor in the pro-life/choice debate. I have long since gone back to being unequivocally pro-life, from both a religious and secular standpoint. I'll give the explanation at the end of the post.

1) Which is more important, the life of the child or the choice of the mother?

The life of the child.

2) Couldn't abortion eventually lead to the practice of infanticide?

It could if logic were followed; the pro-choice crowd, however, mixes emotion with logic and would probably never go that far. There already is infanticide attempted and committed by people, illegaly; one could argue for legalizing it along the same lines one argues for abortion, for the most part.

3) Does the father of the child have any voice?

I don't believe the way things are now that he does. He should, but the only voice he would have is whatever voice the mother allows him to have; the law doesn't give him any voice at all.

4) Do parents have any say if their under age teenage daughter wishes to have an abortion.

If parents have to have their say in any other medical procedures affecting their children then that should apply to abortion, also.

As I see it, the main argument for abortion is that a woman should have a right to do what she wants with her body, so if she wants to terminate a pregnancy, that should be her choice alone.

Science acknowledges that a life is conceived when an egg is fertilized. The embryo is a new life. It may not have a nervous system, it may not resemble more developed human life, but it is a human life.

If we are going to tell women that their choice to terminate a pregnancy supersedes the right of the new human lives inside their wombs, then it is irrational to say this should have a cut-off, such as when the fetus is formed. If it's about a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body, she should be allowed to abort weeks or days before giving birth. But I don't know many, or even any, pro-choice people who support this. So, they are equivocating and basing it on how developed the human life is. This means that the woman's right to choice is NOT, by their own admission, the only factor; they acknowledge some type of right on the part of that new life in the womb.

So, you can't have it both ways; you are either for a woman's choice, all the way, that she can abort at any time and claim the life as a casualty of her choice to abort the pregnancy, OR you acknowledge that the unborn have rights, and if they have rights then one of those is the right to life itself, the right to not be aborted. I don't see how there can be any in-between except by equivocation, and equivocation is precisely what I see from the pro-choice folks.

As for legalized infanticide, if "choice" were really that important, it would be a parent's choice to continue to sustain a baby's life. But apparently a baby's right to life is more important than such a choice by a parent. We enforcc that by law and a person who kills a baby is a murderer by law. Had that persoon killed the same baby a few months earlier when it was in the womb, it would have been viewed as her right to choose. It's inconsistent.

It's funny - most of my friends who are pro-choice, when I ask them about it, they always firmly support "a woman's right to choose" but very quickly add "I would personally NEVER get an abortion, I can't imagine one of my kids not being here because I wanted to end a pregnancy," etc. The cognitive dissonance on this one is astounding; I was of that mindset myself at one time, and several in this thread have stated or implied this to be their mindsets also. When you get brutally honest about it, there's no way around the fact that destroying a fertilized egg is the destruction of a brand-new human life.

The pro-life faction, by the way, does itself no favors by focusing on abortion and ignoring the fertility clinics which create and destroy embryos daily; they choose to ignore this for the weird reason that it propogates more pregnancies but the fact is that there are several new lives being destroyed in the process of creating each one that goes through a full term pregnancy.

The subject is a political football - neither side will end abortion, ever. They use it to rally their bases and as a scare tactic, a carrot dangled from a stick.

[bernee51]

Just fine? For whom?

For children who have not been aborted and whose mothers do not wish to raise them? What a silly question, who'd you think I was talking about

Why do you take my comments out of context? It was in relation to my next observation.

Is these the sort of orphages you are promoting?

I do not condone the Catholic Church molestations and the church cover-ups. Such orphanages as these should either be closed.

“Either be closed...?� or what?

How do you propose safeguarding the integrity of these places?

Government intervention?
Self –regulation? (yeah that has worked!)

t;]Neither do I...which government permits the killing of babies?

Any government that permitts abortion.

Abortion is not killing babies.

I would have thought that an apparently educated person would know the difference between an baby and a foetus.

Perhaps the US should inquire of the policy of those countries that have much lower teen pregancies and rates of abortion.

Do you care about a having lower abortion rates? If so, why? If the fetus, in your opinion, is not a viable life, then who cares how many abortions take place.

Are you suggesting that abortions need to be lowered because the fetus is an actual life?

Abortions carry risks to the pregnant woman. They can be very traumatic physically and psychologically. Anything that minimises the chance of trauma is worthwhile pursuing.

Stigmatization by those who would call these women, who are often making a difficult choice, as ‘baby killers’ does not help in this.

If you don’t hold abortion to be morally right – that is your choice. Those who chose to undergo a legal procedure have made their own choice. What right do you have to interfere in their choice?

[WinePusher]

“Either be closed...?� or what?

Whoops! That was a mis-type

How do you propose safeguarding the integrity of these places?

Government intervention?
Self –regulation? (yeah that has worked!)

These alleged child abusers and molestors should be charged and prosecuted according to the federal laws and statutes of the country in which they inhabit. It's the job of the courts to decide these matters.

Abortion is not killing babies.

That is your opinion, by no means is that scientific fact.

I would have thought that an apparently educated person

Thank you for the complement! I say that genuinely.

would know the difference between an baby and a foetus.

Please tell a mother who feels her child kicking in her womb that it is not a baby.

At conception, the genetic code and DNA is determined once the ovary and the sperm meet. That is not a fact, once the males sperm and females ovary meet, the genetic code for the child is determined. I repeat this for emphasis that this is not conjecture, it is a FACT. If you do not think that moment constitutes life, please tell me when it does.

Are you suggesting that abortions need to be lowered because the fetus is an actual life?

No, I am not. I am showing the fallacy in the logic of those who claim to be "pro choice"

If the fetus is not a life, then who cares how many abortions take place.

Abortions carry risks to the pregnant woman. They can be very traumatic physically and psychologically. Anything that minimises the chance of trauma is worthwhile pursuing.

I agree, abortion absolutly harms the woman. So, if abortion is psychological harmful to women, then why permitt it?

Let try to present your logic, and if I mis represent it, please point it out.

1) Abortion is the termination of a fetus that is not a viable life and abortion does not constitute "baby killing"

2) Woman get abortions because they feel it is there only option, and or, they have the right over their body.

3) Abortion, in your opinion, should be limited and made fewer, not on the grounds that a fetus is an actual life, but rather because it is harmful to the mother. So"
-Abortions should be made fewer because it harms the mother, not because the fetus is an actual life.

4) you expicitly stated that abortions do psychologically and physically harm the mother.

5) Thus, abortion is harmful to the mothers health.

6) Thus, if abortion is harmful to the mother's health, as you stated, and abortion takes the life of a child, as I stated, then what purpose does it serve.

It seems that for the mother and the child, abortion is harmful.

Stigmatization by those who would call these women, who are often making a difficult choice, as ‘baby killers’ does not help in this.

I will not playcoat this issue. I will call it as it is, baby killing.

If you don’t hold abortion to be morally right – that is your choice. Those who chose to undergo a legal procedure have made their own choice. What right do you have to interfere in their choice?

Let us again apply this logic to another situatioon.

1) I believe it is immoral to beat up diabled/handicapped people.

2) Chuck goes and beats up a disabled/handicapped person.

3) I witness this event, but on your logic, I should not interfere with Chuck's choice to beat up a homeless person.

4) However, The disabled/handicapped person as no voice and cannot defend him or herself.

5) Therefore I am obliged as a HUMAN BEING to interfere and stop this atrocity.

[Abraxas]

I am going to throw in the same two cents I put in in the last abortion debate. I believe abortion should be legal, but not for the reason I do not consider the fetus alive.

From my perspective, all people have the right to life, however, there are limits to ones rights to sustain their own life. I cannot, for example, kill an innocent person to harvest their bone marrow just because I need a bone marrow transplant. I cannot burgle to pay for life saving surgery. Likewise, I cannot force someone to donate an organ to me against their will, even if I need it to survive. Regardless of my right to live, there are certain boundaries I must respect in regards to other people.

As such, I hold that no human shall be permitted to use the body of another human against their will for any purpose, up to and including gestation. If the mother decides she does not want the fetus, human or not, living or not, to use her body, it is her right to remove the fetus from her body. I hold this to be true at any point during the pregnancy.

However, by the same token, that does not entitle the mother to kill the fetus either. If there is any procedure that exists that could save the fetus after removing it from the mother, that must be taken over any that harms it. Early on, with current technological limitations, this will be impossible, however, once there is the smallest degree of viability, ever effort must be made to keep the fetus alive and healthy both in removing it from the mother and afterward, so long as the operation is not overly life threatening to the mother.

This, to me, is the only way to reconcile the rights of both fetus and mother and respect them as people.