Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[CWBetts]

Except for the fact that they leave room open for a person to choose to have an abortion, so long as they’re okay with the societal fallout that results.

IMO, I would say that most anarchists, by definition, would probably be properly classified as “pro-choice”, despite their moral views on abortion. They may not be “pro-abortion”, but they probably are “pro-choice”, in the sense that they don’t support legally restricting the right of women to get abortions.

Edit: woudn’t you agree that the fact that they don’t support legally restricting people in any sense implies that they’re don’t support legally restricting people on the abortion issue specifically?

Regardless of whether you dislike my definition or not, it’s accurate. The pro-choice camp includes both people who think that abortion can be a positive thing and people who view it as generally negative but don’t want to impose their view on others through the law.

People who are pro-abortion would mostly fall into the category of “pro-choice”, but not always. For example, anyone who advocates eugenics through abortion of the “unfit” would certainly not be pro-choice.

From the pro-choice side, it really is about the woman’s legal right to choose, despite the rhetoric from the opposite side.

Edit: it occurs to me that the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. A person who considers abortion to be wrong but doesn’t support legal prohibitions on it would probably be both pro-choice and “pro-life”.

To be pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive. To be pro-life is to seek to protect all human life from conception to natural death. Pro-choice is either pro-abortion, or apathetic towards life. To say some one is both would be equivalent to an abolitionist saying others can own slaves, but he wouldn’t

 

[gearhead]

Leaving aside the question of the soul for a moment it is still disingenuous to compare that zygote shortly after conception to any other human artifact based upon the chromosomes, because left alone, that is a fetus, a baby, a child, a girl or boy, a woman or man.

I disagree. Left alone, the fetus fails to develop. And I’m not just talking about providing basic nutrients or oxygen; fetal development is dependent on numerous hormones and other (name removed by moderator)uts from the mother.

Left alone, a human hair is still a hair. The point is, there is a continuum from that point right to adulthood, and the continuum is that of a unique human person, however you define it.

The continuum extends further back than that, IMO. Making a distinction at conception seems quite arbitrary to me, especially when we consider what is meant by “conception”, which itself is a continuum and not a single point.

At any point along that continuum prior to adulthood, that adult, that autonomous rational human being is there in potentiality, whether it seems obvious or not. Thus the zygote, the fetus, the baby, the child are all the same adult in potentiality. It is a unique organic self-contained developing unit, all of its life. If it is not a human person in the womb at any point, it is not a human person as an adult.

So, then, in any set of monozygotic (i.e. “identical”) twins, one of them is not a person?

They developed from a single embryo and a single zygote, which you claim is an individual person. And if the second twin (however you decide which one was the “second” twin) wasn’t present “in potentiality” as a unique person right from the start, then it’s never present at all by your argument, right?

If it is not OK to kill it for our own convenience as an adult, it is not OK to kill it at any point along that continuum except prior to when it became that unique human individual. That point is conception because we know that is when the continuum started.

Okay… when did it start?

And I don’t mean just “conception”. What point in the conception process marks the “start” of your continuum, and why isn’t it some point earlier or later?

To be pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive. To be pro-life is to seek to protect all human life from conception to natural death. Pro-choice is either pro-abortion, or apathetic towards life.

I disagree. If a person opposes abortion, wants to discourage it, actively campaigns to stop it, but doesn’t think that legal prohibitions are the proper method to take, then IMO, that person is pro-choice. However, by actively campaigning against abortion, I think the person would meet most normal definitions of “pro-life” as well.

In any case, I think the definition of “pro-choice” is simple, and it’s only based on one’s stance on the legal prohibition of abortion.

 

[gakroeger]

If you are interested…I am quite at peace.

I’m just being realistic with my comments about this being a never-ending debate. How many pages are in this thread? I suspect that two of the posters on this thread - ‘gearhead’ and ‘gakroeger’ - could go back and forth on this issue for months and still not have convinced the other of anything.

To minimize the pro life versus pro choice issue to a meaningless debate is to say the least irresponsible. There is far more at stake here then people’s personal opinions. We are in very real terms talking about life and death and the survival of civilization as we know it. The steady devaluing of certain classes of human life starting with the wide spread use of contraceptives and the resulting decoupling of human sexuality and reproduction in the sixties which lead to the “sex without responsibility” mentality; progressing to abortion, mercy killing, assisted suicide, and now euthanasia in the 2000’s. One has to cringe at where it may lead in succeeding years; we have first attacked the most vulnerable human life by aborting pre born humans, next we went after the downs syndrome and other prenatal conditions judging that these humans do not have a right to live; the next threat is to the elderly. The health care plan being proposed by the Obama administration clearly indicates their intention of setting up review boards to determine whether the elderly or terminally ill will be given the necessary medical treatment or whether these review boards will determine that the cost/benefit is not there, consequently, expensive medical care may be withheld. There is no end to this morally bankrupted ideology; the government can keep whittling away at the least productive members of society.

So, your cavalier attitude as to neither “gearhead” or I could come to a meeting of the minds, pales in the seriousness of this issue. Regardless of which of us is right and which is wrong, the fact remains that truth is truth and everything else is false. I have stressed over and over on this thread, there is no grey areas in truth, it is either truth or it is not, therefore one of us is right the other wrong regardless of if we ever come to agree with the others point of view. I am certainly comfortable with my position.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I disagree. If a person opposes abortion, wants to discourage it, actively campaigns to stop it, but doesn’t think that legal prohibitions are the proper method to take, then IMO, that person is pro-choice. However, by actively campaigning against abortion, I think the person would meet most normal definitions of “pro-life” as well.

^ ^

In the abortion debate, the definitions are, IMO:

Pro-choice; “It’s my choice. I care about me and my rights, NOT the rights of my baby.”

Pro-life; “I respect life. *All *deserve to be born, not just those who are “conveniently” born.”

 

[gearhead]

^ ^

In the abortion debate, the definitions are, IMO:

Pro-choice; “It’s my choice. I care about me and my rights, NOT the rights of my baby.”

Ah - so you base your definition on a caricature.

Here are my definitions:

Pro-choice: “I oppose the outlawing of abortion.”

Anti-abortion: “I support the outlawing of abortion.”

“Pro-life” (which I consider distinct from “anti-abortion”): “I believe that a fetus is a person and a human being, and that all fetuses deserve to be born.”

I think that many (most? All?) people who are anti-abortion are so because of their “pro-life” views, but being “pro-life” doesn’t necessarily imply that a person is anti-abortion. It also doesn’t necessarily imply that a person can’t be pro-life… such as the anarchists mentioned before: if a person feels strongly that a fetus is a person but rejects the idea of legal restrictions altogether, then they’d be pro-choice and pro-life… though the situation with anarchists is rather unique.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Ah - so you base your definition on a caricature.

Here are my definitions:

Pro-choice: “I oppose the outlawing of abortion.”

Anti-abortion: “I support the outlawing of abortion.”

“Pro-life” (which I consider distinct from “anti-abortion”): “I believe that a fetus is a person and a human being, and that all fetuses deserve to be born.”

I think that many (most? All?) people who are anti-abortion are so because of their “pro-life” views, but being “pro-life” doesn’t necessarily imply that a person is anti-abortion. It also doesn’t necessarily imply that a person can’t be pro-life… such as the anarchists mentioned before: if a person feels strongly that a fetus is a person but rejects the idea of legal restrictions altogether, then they’d be pro-choice and pro-life… though the situation with anarchists is rather unique.

*Now *I see what you mean.
Okay, so your first definitions are correct. People who are anti-abortion want it outlawed. And those who are for abortion don’t. That’s simple. Glad we agree.
But you don’t need to confuse the two.

 

[uther]

Every pregnant woman is at risk, even if it’s a small risk, from pregnancy. They’re certainly at more risk to their lives than many situations where we allow a person to extricate themselves from the situation.
Then I suppose you haven’t met many people who factor the woman’s rights into the equation.

This is an interesting argument. If I read it correctly, extrapilated it would mean essentially that because any pregnancy is a physical risk, then any pregnancy would be subject to the woman’s decision to abort based on that physical risk and her personal right not to assume that risk. That is to say, the absolute right to abortion as it now stands under the law.

If we unpack this just a little it we can see, in terms of motivation, it has a lot to do with ideology, and much less to do with risk.

Thinking for a moment about the cause of pregnancy, we can see that at least 50% of the act of intercourse is the contribution of the woman. Simply looked at in social responsibility terms, the assumption of risk is already there on her part, at least partially. The only two cases that preclude her assumption of risk are ignorance and rape. Ignorance of the consequences of intercourse or ignorance of the reliability of her choice of contraceptive, and of course rape takes away her choice in the act of intercourse itself.

Looking at this is terms of personal individual rights, even though the act itself requires a male contributor, the assumption of risk goes up to 100%, except in those cases of ignorance or rape as mentioned above. Haven’t we heard that expression, “keep your laws off my body?” That is an expression of that ideal of radical individual rights.

If we look at the history of the feminist movement and its changes over the years we see that at some point it became a creed that women, in order to be equal with men, must be able to have sexual intercourse without consequences, as if that was really the case with men generally. Abortion then became the back-stop for unreliable birth control and the scenario of literally killing to have sex became a reality. This is where the notion of “being punished with a baby” came from. It is also where the slogan “if men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament” came from. (That is also rather bizarre in a sickening way. If men had babies they would be women, and for some of the radical feminist women abortion already is a sacrament.)

Along the way we have heard the sentiment, particularly in the discussion of contraception but also with respect to STD’s, that people are going to have sex anyway, so they had better be protected. Underlying this and arguments like it, is the lessening or removing of the presumption of moral autonomy in the area of sexual acts of any kind, such that we have a culture that says we cannot control our sexual urges. If that is the case, we need to remove rape laws altogether.

On the contrary, we do have control of ourselves if we wish to. That is the reason, especially now, that the Church needs to hold fast to its priestly celibacy discipline. It is a sign of contradiction to the culture that acts as if nobody can have control of their actions.

In any event, this feminist idea of equality has become an egalitarian rush down to the lowest common denominator, and personal risk has little to do with it.

As the orginal post points out, no argument would be necessary if the unborn are not human beings.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Yesterday I attended a presentation by Scott Klusendorf one of the leading pro life speakers in the Country today. Scott has debated many pro choice people and his speech yesterday was centered on the differences in thought between the opposing sides in this ongoing controversy.

I agree with the premises, but I will never give ground to the enemy by calling it ‘pro-choice.’

Call it what it is.

Pro-abortion.

Pro-ABORTION.

Pro-ABORTION.

 

[gearhead]

I agree with the premises, but I will never give ground to the enemy by calling it ‘pro-choice.’

Call it what it is.

Pro-abortion.

Pro-ABORTION.

Pro-ABORTION.

Again: pro-choice really is “pro-choice”. Here’s the difference:

Pro-abortion:
Q: “Should I get an abortion?”
A: “Yes.”

Pro-choice:
Q: “Should I get an abortion?”
A: “It’s up to you.”

 

[uther]

I disagree. Left alone, the fetus fails to develop. And I’m not just talking about providing basic nutrients or oxygen; fetal development is dependent on numerous hormones and other (name removed by moderator)uts from the mother.

I don’t see how that changes the argument. By left alone, I mean not killed, removed, aborted, however you want to put it. Note also that we know this (name removed by moderator)ut of the mother is generic. By that I mean we can transfer the embryo to another woman’s womb and she can carry it to term. That means simply that the human embryo is dependent upon the “feeding” of the woman’s womb, whether nutrients or hormones, but not dependent on that particular woman’s womb. That then simply means that it is dependent on another human being, specifically a female human being in this case.
IMO that is not radically different from the infant who is totally dependent on being fed, whether by its biological mother or someone else, and yet we accord the infant with human rights.

The continuum extends further back than that, IMO. Making a distinction at conception seems quite arbitrary to me, especially when we consider what is meant by “conception”, which itself is a continuum and not a single point.

Let’s put it this way, whatever the time elapsed we know for sure that beforehand we have an unfertilized egg and many competing sperm. The egg has the genetic structure of the mother and the sperms have the genetic structure of the father. After the conception “process” we have a unique individual with a totally new individual human genetic structure from contributions of both. So, then, if we had the technology to essentially freeze-frame this process and could know when it would happen precisely and could interfere in that time lapse, perhaps your argument here might have some real relevance, but presently, for the purposes of the abortion debate, it is splitting gnat hairs. The point still stands, that the beginning of the continuum is the end of that conception process. Why? For the reasons already given, that prior to it, there was not the new unique individual. That is why the chromosome argument is relevant, because it gives us the biological marker.

So, then, in any set of monozygotic (i.e. “identical”) twins, one of them is not a person?

They developed from a single embryo and a single zygote, which you claim is an individual person. And if the second twin (however you decide which one was the “second” twin) wasn’t present “in potentiality” as a unique person right from the start, then it’s never present at all by your argument, right?

The zygote before it split into twins was already genetically distinct from the mother and the father. If it subsequently becomes two genetically identical individuals rather that part of the same individual does not change that fundamental distinction. It simply gives two for the price of one, so to speak. So what is the question? Sematics? If you are talking about the soul, that is another question. But it still doesn’t change that fundamental difference before and after conception.

Okay… when did it start?

And I don’t mean just “conception”. What point in the conception process marks the “start” of your continuum, and why isn’t it some point earlier or later?

That is precisely the question you have as yet avoided in this thread. I would be interested to hear at what point you would consider the point on the continuum from conception to natural death that personhood begins and ends. Or is there such a thing as personhood?

Some people argue that it is birth, a seemingly natural point along the continuum. That is at least an answer. I don’t think it is rationally or morally defensible but it is the essential point of this thread that in order to justify abortion you must pick a point on the continuum and argue that personhood and the consequent human rights are present from that point on and not present just prior to it.

Others suggest some sliding point along the scale wherein if the baby were removed or expelled from the womb, medical technology would be able to keep it alive and developing outside of the womb. This is also rather arbitrary, as it determines human rights based on human technological advancement. Presumeably, in some future time, medical science might be able to duplicate the conditions of the womb so precisely as to do an “in vitro” and incubate the baby to a “birth” totally outside of the human body. We know that the technology to care for premature births has advanced to a state un-thought of even decades ago. Were that technology now available we might even care to split the hairs of the conception “process.”

But I am curious. When does personhood start if not as I have argued here?

 

[Christopher68]

To minimize the pro life versus pro choice issue to a meaningless debate is to say the least irresponsible. There is far more at stake here then people’s personal opinions. We are in very real terms talking about life and death and the survival of civilization as we know it. The steady devaluing of certain classes of human life starting with the wide spread use of contraceptives and the resulting decoupling of human sexuality and reproduction in the sixties which lead to the “sex without responsibility” mentality; progressing to abortion, mercy killing, assisted suicide, and now euthanasia in the 2000’s. One has to cringe at where it may lead in succeeding years; we have first attacked the most vulnerable human life by aborting pre born humans, next we went after the downs syndrome and other prenatal conditions judging that these humans do not have a right to live; the next threat is to the elderly. The health care plan being proposed by the Obama administration clearly indicates their intention of setting up review boards to determine whether the elderly or terminally ill will be given the necessary medical treatment or whether these review boards will determine that the cost/benefit is not there, consequently, expensive medical care may be withheld. There is no end to this morally bankrupted ideology; the government can keep whittling away at the least productive members of society.

So, your cavalier attitude as to neither “gearhead” or I could come to a meeting of the minds, pales in the seriousness of this issue. Regardless of which of us is right and which is wrong, the fact remains that truth is truth and everything else is false. I have stressed over and over on this thread, there is no grey areas in truth, it is either truth or it is not, therefore one of us is right the other wrong regardless of if we ever come to agree with the others point of view. I am certainly comfortable with my position.

Just because I am not in lock-step agreement with you on this does not make my attitude ‘cavalier’. And for the record, I used the word ‘debate’ because that particular word was used in the title of this thread.

 

[uther]

Again: pro-choice really is “pro-choice”. Here’s the difference:

Pro-abortion:
Q: “Should I get an abortion?”
A: “Yes.”

Pro-choice:
Q: “Should I get an abortion?”
A: “It’s up to you.”

That begs the question and is what is so irritating to pro-lifers.

The question is whether or not abortion is murder. That is the debate, and the underlying point of this thread. If it is not murder, then your analysis is correct. If it is murder, then by moral and legal default it is not subject to choice. At this point in time, the law has said that it is not murder. Pro-lifers argue that it is murder and the law is wrong, and further the law should be changed to reflect the moral fact.

Thus when we say that pro-choice is pro-abortion we are not speaking of an individuals personal selection of two morally acceptable positions because the person that is pro-choice, by default is saying that abortion is not murder even if they would not choose to do it. If they considered abortion murder they could not condone anyone else’s choice to do it any more than they could do it themself.

Your argument assumes the moral debate is closed, and is really an obfuscation. And I think you know it.

There is also a further dimension to this. Is it first or second degree murder? This was brought out in Illinois Senator Obama’s refusal to support the Infant Born Alive Act, wherein he stated to the effect that by saving the life of an infant that survives an abortion it would negate the woman’s original intention.

What that means is that not only did the woman, whether for personal risk or convenience, wish to “terminate” the pregnancy, (every live birth is the termination of a pregnancy by definition) she also intended to terminate the baby. Terminate with extreme prejudice. That to my mind changes it from second degree to first degree murder by default according to stated intentions.

 

[gearhead]

I don’t see how that changes the argument. By left alone, I mean not killed, removed, aborted, however you want to put it.

But that standard applies before conception as well: if sperm and an egg are in proximity to each other and you leave them alone, an embryo will result.

Let’s put it this way, whatever the time elapsed we know for sure that beforehand we have an unfertilized egg and many competing sperm. The egg has the genetic structure of the mother and the sperms have the genetic structure of the father. After the conception “process” we have a unique individual with a totally new individual human genetic structure from contributions of both. So, then, if we had the technology to essentially freeze-frame this process and could know when it would happen precisely and could interfere in that time lapse, perhaps your argument here might have some real relevance, but presently, for the purposes of the abortion debate, it is splitting gnat hairs.

It’s relevant as long as the abortion debate includes things like the “morning-after” pill. It’s also relevant in your claim that there’s a specific, identifiable point at conception and that development from that point all the way until adulthood is a smooth, unbroken continuum.

The point still stands, that the beginning of the continuum is the end of that conception process. Why? For the reasons already given, that prior to it, there was not the new unique individual. That is why the chromosome argument is relevant, because it gives us the biological marker.

But there were unique individuals before that. The DNA of the sperm and the DNA of the egg are both distinct from that of the parents.

The zygote before it split into twins was already genetically distinct from the mother and the father. If it subsequently becomes two genetically identical individuals rather that part of the same individual does not change that fundamental distinction. It simply gives two for the price of one, so to speak. So what is the question? Sematics? If you are talking about the soul, that is another question. But it still doesn’t change that fundamental difference before and after conception.

It refutes your point that “unique human individuals” can only arise at conception.

It also refutes what I think is an implicit point in your argument that genes are the mark of a person. How can you claim that a specific set of DNA marks a “unique human individual” if it isn’t necessarily unique to the individual?

That is precisely the question you have as yet avoided in this thread. I would be interested to hear at what point you would consider the point on the continuum from conception to natural death that personhood begins and ends. Or is there such a thing as personhood?

Probably not. I personally think that the concept of “personhood”, especially in this context, is probably a human creation.

I personally assign greater value to the embryo/fetus as it develops. When that value reaches so high a level that it is greater than the freedom of the mother is a tricky question. Personally, I’m okay with having no limits on abortion at all, knowing that later-term abortions wouldn’t be “convenience” abortions, but instead would primarily be for major problems in the pregnancy or major threats to the health of the mother. However, I wouldn’t be adverse to the idea of restricting late-term abortions, so long as I didn’t think it was a stepping stone to an all-out abortion ban.

Some people argue that it is birth, a seemingly natural point along the continuum. That is at least an answer. I don’t think it is rationally or morally defensible but it is the essential point of this thread that in order to justify abortion you must pick a point on the continuum and argue that personhood and the consequent human rights are present from that point on and not present just prior to it.

No, there’s no imperative for me to pick a specific point. The default position in a free society is just that: freedom. If you want a restriction of a person’s rights - if you want to make it illegal for a person to do a thing - it’s up to you to justify it.

Others suggest some sliding point along the scale wherein if the baby were removed or expelled from the womb, medical technology would be able to keep it alive and developing outside of the womb. This is also rather arbitrary, as it determines human rights based on human technological advancement.

The point changes with time, but that hardly makes it “arbitrary”. The main problem I see with using the point of viability as the cutoff for abortion is that viability isn’t a single point either. It’s not like there’s a particular time when the fetus goes from “viable” to “not viable”; there would be a long period when the probability of survival of the fetus outside the womb would be zero, and then a range where the probability of survival of the fetus rises over time, but never reaching 100% (since even at full term, survival isn’t certain). What probability indicates “viability”? I don’t know myself.

Also, there’s another problem: even at viability (however it’s defined), it’s not like the woman can say “that’s it! I quit!” and induce labour right then and there.

 

[gearhead]

That begs the question and is what is so irritating to pro-lifers.

It begs which question?

And if you think the term “pro-choice” is misleading, you should hear what people in the pro-choice camp think of the term “pro-life”.

The question is whether or not abortion is murder. That is the debate, and the underlying point of this thread. If it is not murder, then your analysis is correct. If it is murder, then by moral and legal default it is not subject to choice. At this point in time, the law has said that it is not murder. Pro-lifers argue that it is murder and the law is wrong, and further the law should be changed to reflect the moral fact.

Thus when we say that pro-choice is pro-abortion we are not speaking of an individuals personal selection of two morally acceptable positions because the person that is pro-choice, by default is saying that abortion is not murder even if they would not choose to do it. If they considered abortion murder they could not condone anyone else’s choice to do it any more than they could do it themself.

By the same argument, any Catholic who agrees with the legal right to religious freedom is “pro-heresy”.

Your argument assumes the moral debate is closed, and is really an obfuscation. And I think you know it.

No, I don’t. And I don’t consider the moral debate closed; I just don’t think it’s central in determining whether the label “pro-choice” is appropriate.

The “choice” in pro-choice really is the relevant idea. As I pointed out before, the pro-choice movement would be just as opposed to forced abortion (as has happened in the name of eugenics at various times in history) as the “pro-life” camp would be.

There is also a further dimension to this. Is it first or second degree murder? This was brought out in Illinois Senator Obama’s refusal to support the Infant Born Alive Act, wherein he stated to the effect that by saving the life of an infant that survives an abortion it would negate the woman’s original intention.

What that means is that not only did the woman, whether for personal risk or convenience, wish to “terminate” the pregnancy, (every live birth is the termination of a pregnancy by definition) she also intended to terminate the baby. Terminate with extreme prejudice. That to my mind changes it from second degree to first degree murder by default according to stated intentions.

Hmm. In that legal climate, I would think that a school that teaches abstinence-only to their students could be considered guilty of criminal negligence causing death. No?

 

[gakroeger]

Just because I am not in lock-step agreement with you on this does not make my attitude ‘cavalier’. And for the record, I used the word ‘debate’ because that particular word was used in the title of this thread.

However, your implication was that it was only a debate and a useless one at that.

 

[Christopher68]

However, your implication was that it was only a debate and a useless one at that.

Then perhaps I didn’t use the best words, or you interpreted my comments differently than I intended them. Actually I believe debating moral issues is highly beneficial. “Changing hearts and minds” is the best approach to this issue, in my opinion.

 

[Supercatholic]

A fetus is a fetus. An embryo is an embryo. Both will develop into a baby if things proceed normally, but neither are a “developing baby”, since “baby” is the term we use post-birth.

Hey gearhead, Just wondering if you’re a bonehead. An embryo that develops into a fetus IS a developing baby. At the moment of it’s birth it’s a baby, but five minutes before it was a fetus? Your ignorance sums up the entire idiocy of the pro “choice” movement. It’s a good thing for them they have you in their corner to perpetuate this illogical unsubstantied medical and scientific falsehood. It’s not a steak until after it’s cooked, right? So if it’s medium rare instead of well done, it must still be a cow.

 

[Holly3278]

I suspect that this is a never-ending debate.

I suspect the same. There are always going to be people out there who support evil. There is nothing that can be done about that. However, we can win as many people to the pro-life side as possible and pray for the best outcome!

 

[Arwen037]

Also, there’s another problem: even at viability (however it’s defined), it’s not like the woman can say “that’s it! I quit!” and induce labour right then and there.

Actually, I think you can. I had a co-worker (teenager) who was 7 mo pregnant. Her doctor could see that the lungs were developed. It is my understanding that her doctor told her she could have the child early if she wanted. I know she was at least thinking about it. Whether or not that is responsible is a different issue.

 

[Supercatholic]

Even if the embryo is human, virtually every jurisdiction recognizes the right of the average citizen to choose to not place themselves at even a minor risk, even if it means the certain death of another person.

We’ve made great strides in making pregnancy safer, but carrying a pregnancy to term still represents a significant risk to the mother. It’s perfectly legal in most other situations for a person to stand by and do nothing at all to help while a person dies; why should it not be legal in this case as well?

If we take as given (for the purposes of this discussion) that a fetus or embryo is a person, What’s the fundamental moral difference between these two cases?

• a pregnant woman in her first trimester decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of pregnancy and gets an abortion.
• a mother decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of minor smoke inhalation or first-degree burns and leaves her baby in its crib next to the curtains that have caught fire and runs out of the house alone.

Keep in mind that the second course of action is perfectly legal.

Even if you establish that a fetus is a person (which by itself is a massive leap to make), you still haven’t reached a rationale for prohibition of abortion.

It is not legal in any jurisdiction to take the life of any human being unless you are threatened with intent to harm. An unborn baby offers zero intent to harm. Show me one case, just one single solitary case where an unborn baby displayed an intent to harm it’s mother, then maybe I’ll consider your position. There are such things as complicated pregnancies, but the vast majority offer absolutely no risk whatsoever. 37 women have died giving birth since Roe v Wade. Roughly 200 women per year have died from abortions since Roe v Wade. That’s about 7,800 and counting. So much for your pregnancy is a risk theory. Your argument that a mother leaves her baby to die in fire is very interesting. I’m now posing this question to all mothers reading this post. (WOULD YOU LET YOUR BABY DIE IN A FIRE JUST TO AVOID YOU BREATHING IN SOME SMOKE OR GETTING SOME BURNS? long term smoke inhaltion can kill you. Short term won’t, but it might make you sick for a while, depending on your size and how much actual smoke you breathed in. Burnt skin can be treated. But how do you treat your conscience if you let your baby die because of selfishness?