Abortion: What is the Right Choice?

[Oscarthecat]

I’m still hunting for answers on this one. I invite anyone to comment:

Let’s say we change the law. Personhood is now conferred at conception. A fertilized egg that has successfully adhered to the uterine wall is now a person.

First of all, your statement that a fertilized egg “is now a person” because we changed the law is flawed. The government can’t MAKE persons-it can only recognize them. Slaves didn’t magically become people just because the law recognized them as such.

Secondly, and more to your point, it seems like you’re trying to steer this discussion toward casuistry and consequentialism. The full understanding of human persons as deserving of the same rights from conception to death does require people to take full account of their rights and responsibilities. Ethics and values are the basis for our decisions in the real world, not the other way around. There are many tragic and unintentional things that happen in the world. Seeking justice in such situations doesn’t lead me to dismiss the personhood of the victim, but rather to address the events compassionately and intelligently. That is, my values don’t change with every new situation I encounter.

It doesn’t make sense for a person to look through your questions and decide that an unborn baby has rights in one situation, but not in another. If you accept that the unborn baby is a human person in every situation, then you have to figure out what to do about that by taking into account intention and degrees of fault, negligence, and culpability in the course of individual circumstances. For example, I would judge a mother who seeks to kill her unborn child by rolling down a hill very differently than than a mother who kills her unborn child by slipping and falling down a hill, but I acknowledge that the unborn child is a human person in both situations.

There are people whose actions have resulted in the accidental deaths of others, and there are parents whose carelessness has resulted in the unintentional deaths of their children. Most of these people did not go to jail for their actions, and rightly so- does that mean that their victims weren’t human persons?? Of course not-it means that we are able to apply complex values and ethics in the real world without mistaking accidents for murder.

 

[SFTor]

Most doctors claim there is almost a nil chance a choice would have to be made between the life of the mother and child. I believe if a mother had to make a choice between the life of her unborn child and her own, she would give her own life, otherwise, if she has a conscience, she wouldn’t be able to live with herself.

Well, Elts, other people may have different views on that, you know?

 

[SFTor]

?

Sorry, I don’t understand one thing, why would the police be looking through a woman’s cupboard if she had a miscarriage? Do you honestly think the pro-life advocates are into investigating the causes of every miscarriage…through police investigation?

To answer the topic question…the right choice when faced with an unexpected pregnancy is to choose life.

If we change the laws to make life begin at birth, then we have no choice. A human being is dead—this is the most serious thing that happens in the legal system. If there are suspicious circumstances, the police certanly has to investigate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If if were to put in practical terms, I would probably imagine medical professionals stipulating some stage of development where they would feel comfortable saying that the fetus still was not developed enough to be sentient, and then give it another safety margin.

Why “medical professionals,” as opposed to carpenters, poets or garbagemen?

The point is, you are *begging the question *-- asking us to assume without argument that certain criteria equal “personness.” If that is your standard, no one has any more qualifications to apply it than anyone else.

At the same time, there is a bright, shining line that you keep tripping over – when does the child become a living human being?

It is living at conception.
It is human at conception (it has human DNA)
It is a being at conception (it has its own DNA.)

 

[SFTor]

?

Sorry, I don’t understand one thing, why would the police be looking through a woman’s cupboard if she had a miscarriage? Do you honestly think the pro-life advocates are into investigating the causes of every miscarriage…through police investigation?

To answer the topic question…the right choice when faced with an unexpected pregnancy is to choose life.

If we change the laws to make life begin at birth, then we have no choice. A human being is dead—this is the most serious thing that happens in the legal system. If there are suspicious circumstances, the police certainly has to investigate.

It is not as simple as to say, “overturn Roe v. Wade, make life begin at conception.” The law will protect a fetus like it protects a 4-year old or a 40-year old. There is no “choose life, be good.” We’re talking about putting the law behind it, and with it your friendly local sheriff, police department, the FBI, the DEA, and Highway Patrol.

If an 18-year woman, known to be pregnant, goes to Canada and comes back a week later, not pregnant, we’re talking about murder. We’re talking about life in prison or possibly lethal injection.

 

[SFTor]

Why “medical professionals,” as opposed to carpenters, poets or garbagemen?

The point is, you are *begging the question *-- asking us to assume without argument that certain criteria equal “personness.” If that is your standard, no one has any more qualifications to apply it than anyone else.

At the same time, there is a bright, shining line that you keep tripping over – when does the child become a living human being?

It is living at conception.
It is human at conception (it has human DNA)
It is a being at conception (it has its own DNA.)

See my post above.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If an 18-year woman, known to be pregnant, goes to Canada and comes back a week later, not pregnant, we’re talking about murder. We’re talking about life in prison or possibly lethal injection.

If an 18-year man, known to be married, goes to Canada and comes back a week later, without his wife and she can’t be found, we’re talking about murder. We’re talking about life in prison or possibly lethal injection.

 

[SFTor]

Why “medical professionals,” as opposed to carpenters, poets or garbagemen?

The point is, you are *begging the question *-- asking us to assume without argument that certain criteria equal “personness.” If that is your standard, no one has any more qualifications to apply it than anyone else.

At the same time, there is a bright, shining line that you keep tripping over – when does the child become a living human being?

It is living at conception.
It is human at conception (it has human DNA)
It is a being at conception (it has its own DNA.)

I understand that is how you feel. I am not speaking about the same thing. I am talking about how long into a pregnancy term abortion is acceptable in an alternative scenario that does not change the present rules.

The reason I’m against changing the present rules is that it takes us to a place we don’t want to be, at least I don’t.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I understand that is how you feel. I am not speaking about the same thing. I am talking about how long into a pregnancy term abortion is acceptable in an alternative scenario that does not change the present rules.

It’s not how I feel, it’s science.

If you lived around 1860, would you be opposed to freeing the slaves because that “changes the present rules?”

If you lived around 1900, would you be opposed to women voting, because that “changes the present rules?”

If you lived around 1950, would you be opposed to school integration, because that “changes the present rules?”

The reason I’m against changing the present rules is that it takes us to a place we don’t want to be, at least I don’t.

That would be a great caption for a cartoon – of a concentration camp, with two SS guards talking.

 

[SFTor]

If an 18-year man, known to be married, goes to Canada and comes back a week later, without his wife and she can’t be found, we’re talking about murder. We’re talking about life in prison or possibly lethal injection.

So we agree that the case of the pregnant woman, who is suddenly un-pregnant, is a murder case that needs to be investigated and prosecuted by the police?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So we agree that the case of the pregnant woman, who is suddenly un-pregnant, is a murder case that needs to be investigated and prosecuted by the police?

We agree that the suspicious disappearence of a **living human being **justifies investigation. The investigation will determine if murder charges are lodged or not.

 

[SFTor]

It’s not how I feel, it’s science.

If you lived around 1860, would you be opposed to freeing the slaves because that “changes the present rules?”

If you lived around 1900, would you be opposed to women voting, because that “changes the present rules?”

If you lived around 1950, would you be opposed to school integration, because that “changes the present rules?”

That would be a great caption for a cartoon – of a concentration camp, with two SS guards talking.

Vern, you’re getting a little emotional here. Maybe you could take a step back and realize that women did not have the right to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons why they got the right were several: quite a few women were coming up dead with sepsis from botched back-alley abortions, and a lot of parents were just not going to stand for having their 17-year old daughter prosecuted as a criminal for one unfortunate roll in the hay.

Not to mention different states had different rules. so that the well-heeled had access, and the poor did not.

So with all due respect, Vern. It’s you who is trying to screw the clock back.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If we change the laws to make life begin at birth, then we have no choice. A human being is dead—this is the most serious thing that happens in the legal system. If there are suspicious circumstances, the police certainly has to investigate.

It is not as simple as to say, “overturn Roe v. Wade, make life begin at conception.” The law will protect a fetus like it protects a 4-year old or a 40-year old. There is no “choose life, be good.” We’re talking about putting the law behind it, and with it your friendly local sheriff, police department, the FBI, the DEA, and Highway Patrol.

If an 18-year woman, known to be pregnant, goes to Canada and comes back a week later, not pregnant, we’re talking about murder. We’re talking about life in prison or possibly lethal injection.

OK, when fully grown humans die, there is normally not a criminal investigation. When my father died, he was in the emergency room. No criminal investigation. So if abortion were to become illegal, you are foreseeing criminal investigations of miscarriages?

So can you possibly show me proof of a criminal investigation involving a naturally occurring miscarriage that occurred prior to Roe? While you’re at it can you also show evidence of someone receiving the death penalty for an abortion, prior to Roe? Or even prosecution in the US of crimes occurring in Canada?

 

[SFTor]

Why “medical professionals,” as opposed to carpenters, poets or garbagemen?

The point is, you are *begging the question *-- asking us to assume without argument that certain criteria equal “personness.” If that is your standard, no one has any more qualifications to apply it than anyone else.

At the same time, there is a bright, shining line that you keep tripping over – when does the child become a living human being?

It is living at conception.
It is human at conception (it has human DNA)
It is a being at conception (it has its own DNA.)

Because medical professionals probably would have something intelligent to say about it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you’re getting a little emotional here.

SFTor, you’re getting a little emotional here.

You’re adancing the Phil Donahue argument – where he sprays spit and declaims that if abortion is outlawed, every woman would be forced to take a pregnancy test each month.

Maybe you could take a step back and realize that women did not have the right to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons why they got the right were several: quite a few women were coming up dead with sepsis from botched back-alley abortions, and a lot of parents were just not going to stand for having their 17-year old daughter prosecuted as a criminal for one unfortunate roll in the hay.

Maybe you could take a step back and realize that men did not have the right to terminate their wives. They had to go to court, pay alimony and so on.

Not to mention different states had different rules. so that the well-heeled had access, and the poor did not.[/quot]
Not to mention different states had different rules. so that the well-heeled had access to divorce, and the poor did not.
SFTor;3774716:

So with all due respect, Vern. It’s you who is trying to screw the clock back.

So with all due respect, SFTor. It’s you who is trying to screw the clock back or up.

 

[SFTor]

OK, when fully grown humans die, there is normally not a criminal investigation. When my father died, he was in the emergency room. No criminal investigation. So if abortion were to become illegal, you are foreseeing criminal investigations of miscarriages?

So can you possibly show me proof of a criminal investigation involving a naturally occurring miscarriage that occurred prior to Roe? While you’re at it can you also show evidence of someone receiving the death penalty for an abortion, prior to Roe? Or even prosecution in the US of crimes occurring in Canada?

Life began at birth, also before Roe. Hence no murders and no investigations.

Your remedy to Roe is personhood from conception. It changes things dramatically.

In other words, you can be for seriously limiting access to abortion, with life beginning at birth. That’s pretty close to the pre-Roe situation.

Or we can change our basic assumption of when human life begins to state it begins with conception. Once you do you have investigations, you have murder, you have murder trials.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Life began at birth, also before Roe. Hence no murders and no investigations.

Your remedy to Roe is personhood from conception. It changes things dramatically.

In other words, you can be for seriously limiting access to abortion, with life beginning at birth. That’s pretty close to the pre-Roe situation.

Or we can change our basic assumption of when human life begins to state it begins with conception. Once you do you have investigations, you have murder, you have murder trials.

Yes, people who commit murder ought to be tried.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Life began at birth, also before Roe. Hence no murders and no investigations.

Your remedy to Roe is personhood from conception. It changes things dramatically.

In other words, you can be for seriously limiting access to abortion, with life beginning at birth. That’s pretty close to the pre-Roe situation.

Or we can change our basic assumption of when human life begins to state it begins with conception. Once you do you have investigations, you have murder, you have murder trials.

You really didn’t answer the question.

Let’s go to 1965 when abortion was illegal. Can you show me a case of a criminal investigation of a naturally occuring miscarriage?

Can you also show an actual death penalty case, circa the same era of a woman being prosecuted and found guilty and receiving the death penalty ?

Finally, can you find a case where a crime occurrs in Canada and prosecution happens in the US? You can even search all the way up to today and show me.

You can’t pretend or scare people that the government is going to spend the time, money and energy investigating and prosecuting a naturally occurring miscarriage.

 

[SFTor]

Yes, people who commit murder ought to be tried.

Fascinating.

So then we agree that there would need to be a government entity that would register pregnancies, and who would investigate pregnancies that terminate abruptly and in suspect fashion?

This could perhaps be combined with some sort of reporting duty for doctors, so that once a woman is pregnant we would know if something untoward happens to the fetus.

Does this sound like what you had in mind, Vern?

 

[SFTor]

You really didn’t answer the question.

Let’s go to 1965 when abortion was illegal. Can you show me a case of a criminal investigation of a naturally occuring miscarriage?

Can you also show an actual death penalty case, circa the same era of a woman being prosecuted and found guilty and receiving the death penalty ?

Finally, can you find a case where a crime occurrs in Canada and prosecution happens in the US? You can even search all the way up to today and show me.

You can’t pretend or scare people that the government is going to spend the time, money and energy investigating and prosecuting a naturally occurring miscarriage.

Let me try this again:

Roe v. Wade did not change our conception of when life begins. It was assumed before and after Roe that life begins at birth.

I am not suggesting that the government would investigate every miscarriage. I am suggesting that the government would investigate every suspicious miscarriage, just like they would investigate any other suspicious death. I assume it would be a job for neighbors or family to keep the police informed about suspicious activities.

Kind of like when the Unabomber got turned in to the police by his own brother, remember?