Value of a Fetus. Time to overturn Roe v. Wade?

[August1991]

That said, that consensus about a 'right to life' is not absolute. As I mentioned in a previous post, killing other humans is morally acceptable in a variety of situations such as self defense.

I agree Riverview, and let me give another example.

When you drive your car, you take a small risk of being killed in an accident. In the same sense, our governments regularly make choices that, in effect, result in the deaths of citizens. We know about this in the case of medical waiting lists but it is also true in the case of highway repairs, drug testing, policing, military orders and all manner of product safety regulations. In general, poor people have shorter lives than rich people - so one could argue that our social system condemns some people to an early death.

We say life is sacrosanct but we offer no precise meaning to that phrase. We cannot safeguard all life and we are forced to make choices. More specifically, we are forced to choose between benefits to those alive and the possible deaths of others. The choices are rarely so bald and explicit but they exist nonetheless.

Now then, I'm not sure what this has to do with abortion except to say that IMV, the question should be viewed pragmatically. Is it feasible to have a law forbidding abortion? Would the law work? I frankly don't think so. If I'm not mistaken, it is impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion in PEI and Nova Scotia yet women in those provinces still obtain abortions.

I think the public would go along with restrictions on late term abortions; certainly the polls suggest that.

For the umpteenth time, let me post a persuasive article about Clinton's veto of law forbidding late-term abortions:

Clinton said that when he first heard about the procedure, he thought he would support the bill, but changed his mind after learning more. "I came to understand that this is a rarely used procedure, justifiable as a last resort when doctors judge it necessary to save a woman's life or to avert serious health consequences to her," Clinton said.

CNN

[Guest Warwick Green]

As for the feminists it's the "control of the body" issue so they will never agree to any restrictions at any time.

I don't think many people have a problem with restricting third trimester abortions. The reason people oppose introducing a new law is because most of the people who oppose abortion will never accept restrictions in the 3rd trimester as a final compromise and will start working to further restrict abortions before ink is dry on the bill. So the thinking is: compromise won't end the fight and it is easier to defend the status quo than to negotiate a compromise that we will then have to fight to protect.

Agreed. Two years at Free Dominion showed me that. Late terms restrictions were always described "as a start". And, as you say, the pro-abortion folks would never go along with that knowing that those opposed to abortion would attempt to use it as a jumping pff point for further restrictions.

[BHS]

]I realize that people who believe in a god find it difficult to wrap their minds around the idea that morals are nothing more than a social concensus and that concensus changes over time.

For example, societies in the future may consider us barbarians because we kill animals for food. Does that mean we should be ashamed of our immoral behavoir when we eat that steak? I don't think so. Each society has to come up with a system of morality that works for them.

That said, not all systems of morals are equal. Societies that do not put a reasonably high value on human life tend to fall apart because once you make it morally acceptable to kill off your neighbors, your neighbors usually decide that they can do the same to you. That is why all of the weathly, stable societies have come to the concensus that all humans have a right to life. That said, that consensus about a 'right to life' is not absolute. As I mentioned in a previous post, killing other humans is morally acceptable in a variety of situations such as self defense.

That is why it is waste to time to say abortion should be banned simply because it is 'murder'. That is basically a religious argument that most people simply do not believe. However, if you want to see abortion banned then you could work to change the social concensus by making the case that society would be better off if we treated abortion as murder. Unfortunately, that is a difficult thing to do because most of the evidence suggests banning abortion actually creates more problems.

The person here who appears to have problems wrapping their head around ideas is you.

In a previous post you completely missed the point I was trying to make. I gave four sample opinions, in quotation marks no less, intended to illustrate that there are opinions in this world that are informed by provable facts, and that these are different from opinions which are informed solely on faith. I thought that this was made pretty obvious by the question I posed at the end of the post. I even threw in an opinion that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It went right over your head, as you replied by taking the sample opinions completely out of their given context, quibbling over the semantical differences between "murder" and "killing" as if the sample opinion were some sort of point that I was trying to make. (By the way, in that statement, if you replace "murder" with "killing" my point is proven, as your reply merely illustrates your own factually informed opinion of the sample subject.)(Oh, and among certain societies, the mafia for instance, murder is an acceptable practice. So your conjecture that "murder=wrong" is analogous to "bad=wrong" doesn't hold water.)

You've made a repeated habit of writing off people with contrary views as religious zealots when that isn't the case. I've clearly argued that if the legal definition of "human life" were changed to include those humans who still rely physically on a direct connection to their mother's body, then abortion would be murder. No religious opining required.

An embryo has it's own beating heart long before it's features are recognizably human, and left to its own devices that heartbeat will continue for about 75 years after it leaves the womb. This is simply fact. You can't just right off the mechanics of millions of years of mammalian reproductive continuity as a worthless religious opinion. Passage through the birth canal is not an supernatural event that magically confers life on an otherwise lifeless clump of tissue. If that is what you believe, perhap's your the one with a religious hangup.

[Riverwind]

An embryo has it's own beating heart long before it's features are recognizably human, and left to its own devices that heartbeat will continue for about 75 years after it leaves the womb. This is simply fact.

A fetus would die instantly if it is removed from the mother's body any sooner than 9 months after fertilization. The fact that it cannot survive on its own makes it completely different from a baby. That is the 'magical' event that happens when the child is born: its physical dependency on its mother is broken and it becomes a human being.

The fact that a fetus has a heart and human features while it is in the womb does not make it human. Of course that is my opinion and I freely admit my own opinion is a religious belief that is no more valid than your opinion that a fetus is human. However, we have agreed as a society to respect each other's religious beliefs which means abortion is one of the those issues where we have to agree to disagree.

You could use my definition to move the dividing line to sometime earlier than 9 months because premature babies sometimes can live on their own. However, I have already stated that restricting abortion in the third trimester is not a big problem for me provided such a compromise would be the end of all discussion regarding the issue.

[August1991]

The person here who appears to have problems wrapping their head around ideas is you.

In a previous post you completely missed the point I was trying to make. I gave four sample opinions, in quotation marks no less, intended to illustrate that there are opinions in this world that are informed by provable facts, and that these are different from opinions which are informed solely on faith.

Well, let me consider your four quotes BHS.

"Murder is wrong because somebody has their life taken from them."

"Abortion is wrong because someone who would have been alive has that life taken from them."

"Adding sugar to a diabetic's food is wrong because it increases his the likelihood of him suffering from poor health."

"Satanism is wrong because it offends God."

Which of these opinions doesn't fit in with the others?

(Hint: it's the one that doesn't have any factual basis.)

Let me try these differently:

"Murder is wrong because somebody has their life taken from them."

"Two-lane highways are wrong because they increase the likelihood of fatal accidents."

"Medical waiting lists are wrong because they mean people have their lives taken from them."

"Flying in airplanes is wrong because sometimes somebody has their life taken from them."

BHS, I think it is you who misses the point. This is not a black and white question. So where do we draw the line? Well, it seems to me that any attempt to forbid abortion in Canada would lead to more evil, grief and harm than not forbidding abortion.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Fascinating subject. As if the pro- and anti-aborters just love going at one another hammer and tongs. No effort at compromise, like you find in other controversial areas, like the environment or crime. They just stand on what they call their principles, or what I would call ideology. And you hear some curious comments, like the person I heard who said he would rather the situation stay as is rather than compromise. So, keep on with 100,000 abortions a year rather than look for ways to cut it to 50,000. And the "Christian lawyer" (just love that term) who said he was in favor of restricting abortion so long at taxes didn't go up to support the unwanted babies.

[BHS]

The person here who appears to have problems wrapping their head around ideas is you.

In a previous post you completely missed the point I was trying to make. I gave four sample opinions, in quotation marks no less, intended to illustrate that there are opinions in this world that are informed by provable facts, and that these are different from opinions which are informed solely on faith.

Well, let me consider your four quotes BHS.

"Murder is wrong because somebody has their life taken from them."

"Abortion is wrong because someone who would have been alive has that life taken from them."

"Adding sugar to a diabetic's food is wrong because it increases his the likelihood of him suffering from poor health."

"Satanism is wrong because it offends God."

Which of these opinions doesn't fit in with the others?

(Hint: it's the one that doesn't have any factual basis.)

Let me try these differently:

"Murder is wrong because somebody has their life taken from them."

"Two-lane highways are wrong because they increase the likelihood of fatal accidents."

"Medical waiting lists are wrong because they mean people have their lives taken from them."

"Flying in airplanes is wrong because sometimes somebody has their life taken from them."

BHS, I think it is you who misses the point. This is not a black and white question. So where do we draw the line? Well, it seems to me that any attempt to forbid abortion in Canada would lead to more evil, grief and harm than not forbidding abortion.

This is turning into more trouble than it's worth. My post was not intended to express statements of my opinion, but to compare opinions based on provable facts with opinions based strictly on faith, as a means of countering the argument that believing unborn children are human beings is strictly religious. Maybe I should go back and add a cautionary note.

[BHS]

Fascinating subject. As if the pro- and anti-aborters just love going at one another hammer and tongs. No effort at compromise, like you find in other controversial areas, like the environment or crime. They just stand on what they call their principles, or what I would call ideology. And you hear some curious comments, like the person I heard who said he would rather the situation stay as is rather than compromise. So, keep on with 100,000 abortions a year rather than look for ways to cut it to 50,000. And the "Christian lawyer" (just love that term) who said he was in favor of restricting abortion so long at taxes didn't go up to support the unwanted babies.

Betsy started a different thread on this topic, which is how I got involved in the argument at all. In that thread I made a couple of statements that have been lost due to everyone shifting back to this thread.

I'm not anti-abortion as a matter of public policy preference. As a matter of fact, I more or less agree that the status quo should be maintained. My entire reason for arguing here at all has been to counter the line that opposition to abortion is based strictly on religious belief.

I think it's pretty funny that you feel it necessary to point out that people who come to a politcal web forum and get involved in contentious issues don't necessarily want to reach a compromise, and prefer to stick to their guns (or ideology). If everyone came and posted their opinion, shook hands and agreed to disagree without further rebutal this site would be dead in a week. What fun would that be?

[Michael Hardner]

River:

A fetus would die instantly if it is removed from the mother's body any sooner than 9 months after fertilization. The fact that it cannot survive on its own makes it completely different from a baby.

This statement is incorrect. Care to restate it ?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Betsy started a different thread on this topic, which is how I got involved in the argument at all. In that thread I made a couple of statements that have been lost due to everyone shifting back to this thread.

I'm not anti-abortion as a matter of public policy preference. As a matter of fact, I more or less agree that the status quo should be maintained. My entire reason for arguing here at all has been to counter the line that opposition to abortion is based strictly on religious belief.

I think it's pretty funny that you feel it necessary to point out that people who come to a politcal web forum and get involved in contentious issues don't necessarily want to reach a compromise, and prefer to stick to their guns (or ideology). If everyone came and posted their opinion, shook hands and agreed to disagree without further rebutal this site would be dead in a week. What fun would that be?

I wasn't referring to our virtual sparring. I was talking about the big bad world out there where in the interests of getting something resolved politically the various factions usually compromise. However, in the abortion case the "pros" see no need to compromise and the "antis" are restricted in compomising because of their ideology.

[Riverwind]

A fetus would die instantly if it is removed from the mother's body any sooner than 9 months after fertilization. The fact that it cannot survive on its own makes it completely different from a baby.

This statement is incorrect. Care to restate it ?

Ok, it might take minutes for a 3 month old fetus to die. But you are quibbling - a fetus cannot survive outside the mother until it is at least 8 months old and I already acknowedged that there could be justification fo restricting late term abortions.

[Guest Warwick Green]

A fetus would die instantly if it is removed from the mother's body any sooner than 9 months after fertilization. The fact that it cannot survive on its own makes it completely different from a baby.

This statement is incorrect. Care to restate it ?

Ok, it might take minutes for a 3 month old fetus to die. But you are quibbling - a fetus cannot survive outside the mother until it is at least 8 months old and I already acknowedged that there could be justification fo restricting late term abortions.

Would we agree that if a fetus is not viable outside the woman's body she is free to abort it if she wishes?

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, it might take minutes for a 3 month old fetus to die. But you are quibbling - a fetus cannot survive outside the mother until it is at least 8 months old and I already acknowedged that there could be justification fo restricting late term abortions.

Quibbling is all I can do on this topic - there is no answer.

[Rue]

The bottom line is abortion is a political issue. You can quote all the cases you want from what-ever jurisdiction you want, but what it comes down to is the politics of morality and whether we want individuals deciding this issue within the private and confidential relationship between patient and doctor, or whether we want the state to impose a collective standard.

I myself believe the decision was to whether to abort or carry a child to full gestation must remain a decision between the mother, doctor and father.

I also believe ultimately as long as the fetus is in a woman's womb, it comes down to an issue as to how that woman controls her body.

I think the right wing zealouts who see anything in the womb as life are no better then the misguided who use abortion as birth control.

Does it suprise me? Of course not. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all portray women as subordinate to men and devalue the worth of the womb and the creation of life within the womb. Women are portrayed as vessels simply performing a function for the good of men.

In my opinion the orthodox wings of these religions preach that women are inferior and in fact a creation from evil. Sex has always been portrayed as a weakness.

If the life force that comes through the beauty of sex is portrayed as dirty and something to be repressed is it any wonder coventional orthodox religion can not deal with the fact that a woman's body is not the property of the Church or the man who impregnated it?

Then again I am probably talking to people who feel sperm is divine and babies are born by divine inspiration when I talk to people who feel abortion is something that is evil so what can I expect.

Ideally we want people having children because they choose do to so with the exercise of pure love and free will. In reality people carry children with horrid deformities or as the result of rape or forced incest. In reality sometimes a choice has to be made between the life of the mother or her child.

In reality no one knows when life begins in a fetus no one can say when a cell after it divides is a life.

To me anti-abortionists want to impose their views on everyone. On the other extreme I also think there may be some who have lost sight of the purpose of why we have sex as well.

Either way I say, its a woman's individual decision what and how she governs her body and its her consequence to suffer if she makes the wrong decision not yours or mine.