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

[Black Dog]

It all comes down to whether you believe things are alive when they are conceived.

If they are, abortion in murder.

If they are not, then its no big deal.

Okay: what do you mean by "alive". A cancerous tumour is "alive". A rabid dog is "alive". But neither is considered human and afforded the same rights as a human being. I don't see why a clump of cells and tissue that are whly dependant on its host for viability should be afforded the same rights as a living breathinghuman being.

Now, obviously, it's not as cut and dried as all that: I happen to believe that in any case wher ethere's a conflict between the rights of a potential person and those of a full-realized human being, the latter should win out.

3 abortions and you get a life sentence. There is no reason for that amount of vast irresponsibility, I don't want people like that in society.

It's as I've always suspected: the heart of conservatism is authoritarianism.

[geoffrey]

So, it seems that the cell devides and starts growing before it ever implants on the uterine lining. So now you have to think up a new reason why this is not consistent with abortion, or you will have to revise your support of the morning-after pill as a contraceptive.

Seems like it hey. I'll have to look into this more before saying anything further. I just had an understanding that the egg didn't start growing until it had secured itself a little piece of uterine lining. If I come to the conclusion that it is abortion, then I'd obviously be against it.

Okay: what do you mean by "alive". A cancerous tumour is "alive". A rabid dog is "alive". But neither is considered human and afforded the same rights as a human being. I don't see why a clump of cells and tissue that are whly dependant on its host for viability should be afforded the same rights as a living breathinghuman being.

Alive being that this will be a human beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, obviously, it's not as cut and dried as all that: I happen to believe that in any case wher ethere's a conflict between the rights of a potential person and those of a full-realized human being, the latter should win out.

To an extend I agree. If a pregnacy will result in the death of the mother, we would be on the same page. I don't think flushing a baby is quite like your average conflict of interest though.

3 abortions and you get a life sentence. There is no reason for that amount of vast irresponsibility, I don't want people like that in society.

It's as I've always suspected: the heart of conservatism is authoritarianism.

Well, depends on the issue. Protecting babies from murder is my opinion of authoritarianism in a positive light.

--

BD, what do you think about putting a limit on how late in the pregnancy you can get the abortion? Are you ok with a baby at 7 months getting flushed? Isn't that baby now able to be self-sustaining outside the womb?

It seems to me like thats where your drawing the line, where the baby can survive by breathing on its own, outside the mother. If thats not what you saying, and your making the baby has to be able to support itself before it has rights, so like, age 5 or 6 realisitically, then I really fear for our society.

I just personally don't see the difference of the 7 month year old and the 1 month year old (from conception). Both are just at different stages of development. A teenager is no lesser to an adult as an adult is no lesser to a senior citizen.

I think I'm going to start measuring my age from my conception.

[Renegade]

BD, what do you think about putting a limit on how late in the pregnancy you can get the abortion? Are you ok with a baby at 7 months getting flushed? Isn't that baby now able to be self-sustaining outside the womb?

It seems to me like thats where your drawing the line, where the baby can survive by breathing on its own, outside the mother. If thats not what you saying, and your making the baby has to be able to support itself before it has rights, so like, age 5 or 6 realisitically, then I really fear for our society.

I just personally don't see the difference of the 7 month year old and the 1 month year old (from conception). Both are just at different stages of development. A teenager is no lesser to an adult as an adult is no lesser to a senior citizen.

I think I'm going to start measuring my age from my conception.

geoffrey, I think you're finally concluding that there is no hard and fast line at which the zygote/fetus/baby suddenly has rights. A baby has rights, a zygote has none, and a fetus may have rights depending upon its stage of development.

This whole issue is about conflicting rights. geoffrey, do you concede that the mother has rights of self-determination for her body or do you dispute this too?

In my view, in the first trimester of pregnancy there is no question that the zygote/blastocyst /fetus is not a human yet and any rights it may have are far superceded by the woman's right to choose what happens with her body.

Sometime in the third trimester of pregnancy, there is no question that the fetus has developed into a baby. Once it is a baby it unquestionably has a right to existance, and at this point its rights supercede the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy.

The transformation takes place sometime in the second trimester, but the I don't know that we can ever pinpoint an exact transition time.

We should therefore ONLY allow abortions where it is clear that the fetus has not yet developed into a human. In my view that limits it to first-trimester abortions only.

Further, I think if a woman carries a pregnancy beyond the first trimester, she is comitting to an IMPLIED commitment and consent to carry the pregnancy to term. That means she is commiting to be responsbile to host the pregnancy. If she violates that commitmetn by smoking, alcohol abuse or other such act, she should be liable to be charged with endangerment, and potentially lose custody of the child.

[Black Dog]

To an extend I agree. If a pregnacy will result in the death of the mother, we would be on the same page. I don't think flushing a baby is quite like your average conflict of interest though.

I think it is. Even if one accepts the fetus a sa human being, it still coems down to one party giving up its rights.

BD, what do you think about putting a limit on how late in the pregnancy you can get the abortion? Are you ok with a baby at 7 months getting flushed? Isn't that baby now able to be self-sustaining outside the womb?

Well, I think it's extremely, extremely rare that you'd have a 7 month old fetus being aborted for reasons other than medical neccesity. So to the extent that those are the circumstances by which such a situation is likely to occur, then yeah: I'm okay with it.

It seems to me like thats where your drawing the line, where the baby can survive by breathing on its own, outside the mother. If thats not what you saying, and your making the baby has to be able to support itself before it has rights, so like, age 5 or 6 realisitically, then I really fear for our society.

I think a fetus' rights kick in when it's continued existence does not require abrogating the right of the mother to self-determination.

[Riverwind]

BD, what do you think about putting a limit on how late in the pregnancy you can get the abortion? Are you ok with a baby at 7 months getting flushed? Isn't that baby now able to be self-sustaining outside the womb?

Your argument is flawed because 7 month old fetuses are *not* self sustaining. Premature babies require near heroic medical interventions to survive and usually must live in an artificial womb for many weeks. Babies are only 'self sustaining' (i.e. require only food and normal care) if they are born near full term.

[gerryhatrick]

A fetus has no value except for medical research.

[sharkman]

There are so many ironies and hypocritical stances in this issue it makes me wince. In the U.S. ( since we're discussing Roe v. Wade), if a teenage girl gets sick during school, the school nurse can not so much as administer an aspirin without parent's permission. If said girl on the other hand wants an abortion, it can be secretly performed, on girls as young as 13, without any word from the parents.

If a woman is murdered and she was pregnant, the killer can be charged with 2 counts of murder, since the fetus is considered a life. Yet the same mother can abort right up to full term, and it's considered just a blob of tissue.

Something is wrong with this picture.

Oh, and Gerry? You sound like a member of the Nazi party of Germany in the '30s.

[sharkman]

Here's an alarming report, except for the fact that reports like this seem to be downplayed or stuffed somewhere in the back of the paper

www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/17/D8GDJL302.html

Two women have recently died while on the abortion drug RU 486. The FDA has now warned doctors to watch for a blood infection for those on this drug.(Watch for a blood infection? How 'bout pull the dangerous drug off the market.) This follows a cluster of 4 deaths in California for a total of six. Apparently, administrators of this drug have been directing women to take the pills in a method not presribed by the drug maker. Weird that they would just make up their own method and ignore the recommended one.

Apparently there is no absolute proof in these cases that the women got the infection from the drug, but since its introduction, women have been occasionally dying. Really weird. They pulled Vioxx on much less results. How many women have to die?

[Riverwind]

Apparently there is no absolute proof in these cases that the women got the infection from the drug, but since its introduction, women have been occasionally dying. Really weird. They pulled Vioxx on much less results. How many women have to die?

Women want to use this drug because anti-abortion flacks make it difficult to seek an abortion at a safe clinic. So if people die from this drug the anti-abortionists deserve a big piece of the blame.

[sharkman]

Apparently there is no absolute proof in these cases that the women got the infection from the drug, but since its introduction, women have been occasionally dying. Really weird. They pulled Vioxx on much less results. How many women have to die?

Women want to use this drug because anti-abortion flacks make it difficult to seek an abortion at a safe clinic. So if people die from this drug the anti-abortionists deserve a big piece of the blame.

Uh, nice try but if people are dying from taking an unsafe drug then the drug maker and the governing body that okayed it are to blame. Besides, haven't you heard, it's easy to get an abortion.

That they don't pull it from the market has political overtones if you ask me. The rabid pro-abortionists are no doubt campaigning hard to keep this questionable drug out there in the face of these health issues.

[geoffrey]

BD, what do you think about putting a limit on how late in the pregnancy you can get the abortion? Are you ok with a baby at 7 months getting flushed? Isn't that baby now able to be self-sustaining outside the womb?

Your argument is flawed because 7 month old fetuses are *not* self sustaining. Premature babies require near heroic medical interventions to survive and usually must live in an artificial womb for many weeks. Babies are only 'self sustaining' (i.e. require only food and normal care) if they are born near full term.

So abortion at 7 months is ok? How about at 8?

How about a kid that is born disabled? They require more than just food and normal care? Is it ok to 'dispose' of them too because they are not self sustaining? If they require heroic meidcal interventions the parent should just be able to have them killed? Full-term babies that need as much care as a premature baby should be fair game for euthanisation in that case.

Your argument on this actually scares me. I never thought I'd hear those that require medical care have no right to life...

I'll never be able to convince you on my opinion, but I can hopefully point out some actual logic holes in the pro-choice argument. I'm probably one of the few pro-lifers that doesn't argue from a religious "God will smite you" perspective.

[GostHacked]

Here's an alarming report, except for the fact that reports like this seem to be downplayed or stuffed somewhere in the back of the paper

www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/17/D8GDJL302.html

Two women have recently died while on the abortion drug RU 486. The FDA has now warned doctors to watch for a blood infection for those on this drug.(Watch for a blood infection? How 'bout pull the dangerous drug off the market.) This follows a cluster of 4 deaths in California for a total of six. Apparently, administrators of this drug have been directing women to take the pills in a method not presribed by the drug maker. Weird that they would just make up their own method and ignore the recommended one.

Apparently there is no absolute proof in these cases that the women got the infection from the drug, but since its introduction, women have been occasionally dying. Really weird. They pulled Vioxx on much less results. How many women have to die?

Ok 6 women die in the same state with the same pill using the pill in a different way that the doctor tells them. This is not the drug manufactures fault. It is the doctor's fault. He tells the patient how it is taken , and the patient listens. So the drug maker is at fault and that makes you want to pull the drug?

Do you know how much damage some aspirin can do you you?

There should be some disclaimer on the medicine about death. And there are a number of women who have died on the drug, but you would not even consider that if the woman has some other medical problem that they should not be taking this pill. That one point they seem to bring up.

You know with other drugs they say 'do not take this if you have yada, it may do this and relly kill you' Medicin is just like anything else, stuff happens that they never anticipated. This has been true for almost every drug out there. There are smart people developing these drugs, but they cannot take into account every possibility at the start.

I would also like to mention that my sister had an abortion when she was 15. My parents basicly told her that she should get an abortion. It also was my sisters choice as well. She would have ruined her life if she had the child. Yes she could have done adoption, but that was not an option she wanted to pursue. It was done and done one weekend.

If she had the child, she may not have become as sucsessful as she is today. Running her own interior design consutling company. She is smart and intelligent, and the baby would have killed all motiviation.

[JerrySeinfeld]

A fetus has no value except for medical research.

Nice one - classy too.

What abortion boils down to is another lefty way of saying "I want to do whatever I want with no consequences"

the nanny state will take care of me anyway. Gays marrying, women having abortions..kirpans in school, cops wearing turbans...blah blah blah blah blah....

[Riverwind]

How about a kid that is born disabled? They require more than just food and normal care? Is it ok to 'dispose' of them too because they are not self sustaining?

Letting nature take its course is not 'disposing' of them. Medical technology has advanced to the point that just keeping someone alive for the sake of 'life' is the most unethical course of action. Recent studies show that many pre-term babies that were 'saved' by medical science would have been better off if the doctors had stayed away.

Your argument on this actually scares me. I never thought I'd hear those that require medical care have no right to life...

I find ironic that the people who argue that vegetables have a right to life are the first to advocate cutting publically funded medical care which condemns many poor people to an early, preventable death. There is a difficult choice that needs to be made in these situations and the person involved should be the one who makes the decision: not the state.

I'll never be able to convince you on my opinion, but I can hopefully point out some actual logic holes in the pro-choice argument. I'm probably one of the few pro-lifers that doesn't argue from a religious "God will smite you" perspective.

The pro-choice argument is logically sound because it acknowlegdes that there can be no absolutes and that it is often necessary to make difficult choices between unattractive alternatives. Pro-life arguments are inevitably hypocrtical because they assume an ideal world which does not exist. Furthermore, pro-life people almost always expect other people to pay for the consequences of their absolutist positions.

[betsy]

Well, I think it's extremely, extremely rare that you'd have a 7 month old fetus being aborted for reasons other than medical neccesity. So to the extent that those are the circumstances by which such a situation is likely to occur, then yeah: I'm okay with it.

But what guarantees this procedure is only used in those rare circumstances, falling precisely under the category of medical necessity?

[betsy]

The pro-choice argument is logically sound because it acknowlegdes that there can be no absolutes and that it is often necessary to make difficult choices between unattractive alternatives. Pro-life arguments are inevitably hypocrtical because they assume an ideal world which does not exist. Furthermore, pro-life people almost always expect other people to pay for the consequences of their absolutist positions.

Necessary to make difficult choices of what? Taking precaution or to hell with precaution!

"Unnatractive" alternatives of what? Taking a cold shower? Sleeping alone? No score?

Choices were there BEFORE a woman reaches the state of getting pregnant! Choices and Alternatives...that WE, the taxpayers had paid for! Education. Information. Propaganda. Condoms and contraceptives.

And what about the simple aspirin-method of precaution???

And what about alternatives when you are pregnant? Have you heard of "adoption?"

I guess carrying the baby for 9 months is too much of a burden...so it's easier to just kill it.

The only thing logically sound is the acknowledgement that yes, the pro-choice arguments mostly centers on SELF -gratification...and shirking from the consequences and responsibility attached. Pro-choice can name it and justify it in anyway they need to....but in the end, it just all boils down to that. Which is hypocritical. And lethal.

So who pays for the consequence? Surely it is that baby in that womb whose life is snuffed!

[Riverwind]

Choices were there BEFORE a woman reaches the state of getting pregnant! Choices and Alternatives...that WE, the taxpayers had paid for! Education. Information. Propaganda. Condoms and contraceptives.

No contraceptive is 100%.

I guess carrying the baby for 9 months is too much of a burden...so it's easier to just kill it.

We kill animals for food or simply because they are inconvenient. The entire abortion question comes down to a religious belief that the life represented by a fetus is somehow more significant than the life represented by an unwanted puppy or a baby seal.

I can respect the fact that some people believe in a God and a soul that enters the fetus at conception. However, people that have those belief must respect the fact that mpst other people do not share their belief.

So who pays for the consequence? Surely it is that baby in that womb whose life is snuffed!

A fetus is not a human life - you may think so but that is your religious belief. If you don't want an abortion - don't have one.

[betsy]

Choices were there BEFORE a woman reaches the state of getting pregnant! Choices and Alternatives...that WE, the taxpayers had paid for! Education. Information. Propaganda. Condoms and contraceptives.

No contraceptive is 100%.

So?

Just for a fluke here and a fluke there…we opt to hand down the death penalty instead to all unwanted unborn?

Gee….isn’t that basically the same reasoning for opposing the death penalty to criminals?

Isn’t there a twisted and sickening feeling to it when the “progressives” deem it just right to defend murderers…and yet so gungho in supporting the slaughter of the vulnerable innocents?

[betsy]

I guess carrying the baby for 9 months is too much of a burden...so it's easier to just kill it.

We kill animals for food or simply because they are inconvenient.

Do we kill unborn for food?

So just because some kill animals because they are inconvenient....that makes it okay to kill unborn? For inconvenience?

Inconvenience.

That's why the "progressives" were supportive of that father who killed his disabled child. They sympathized and emphatized with the INCONVENIENCE that poor suffering father must've felt....caring for that child 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Watching her drool.....having to feed her...change her...bathe her...

Who else could possibly cause us this terrible inconvenience? Anyone could.

I'm healthy today, I'm suddenly a veggie tomorrow...just hope my spouse isn't one of those self-centered individuals who would suddenly look at me and decide I'm such an inconvenience to his lifestyle...

Wow, a mom-to-be wouldn't even give that baby 9 months of her life to give him/her a chance at life.

Nine months is considered a huge set-back! Just get rid of it like a wart.

Again....it only supports what some of us have pin-pointed all along. This is mostly just for selfish reasons.

[betsy]

The entire abortion question comes down to a religious belief that the life represented by a fetus is somehow more significant than the life represented by an unwanted puppy or a baby seal.

The entire abortion question comes down...not only to a religious belief....but also to what is moral.

Pro-choice loved to neatly package it as the sole product of religious belief...somehow that gives them the justification they need (in their own minds).

But it is more than just religious belief. How can one think of an unborn as some form of cancer that has to be removed? Knowing that it is a human life....struggling just like you and me to make it to this world, the only difference is that it is totally dependent on me for survival.

Maybe it just should be that women who can coldly terminate their own offsprings lose their capacity to bear any more children.

[betsy]

So who pays for the consequence? Surely it is that baby in that womb whose life is snuffed!

A fetus is not a human life - you may think so but that is your religious belief. If you don't want an abortion - don't have one.

And that my friend is a typical liberal way of deflecting.

Saying repeatedly that "a fetus is not a human life..." like a mantra does not make it so. It is not considered a "human life" simply because some judges declared it legally so....and we know some decisions can be biased.

So there you go...full circle we come. It's not 100% a sure thing.

[betsy]

Come to think of it...Latimer...and the death penalty.

And now abortionists.

Why do liberal thinkers support murderers?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Choices were there BEFORE a woman reaches the state of getting pregnant! Choices and Alternatives...that WE, the taxpayers had paid for! Education. Information. Propaganda. Condoms and contraceptives.

And what about the simple aspirin-method of precaution???

A long time since I have heard anyone suggest the old aspirin method of birth control.

Reminds me of the lesbian I saw on TV. She was asked, "What do lesbians do in bed"? She replied that there are all sorts of things you can do in bed that don't involve using a penis. I would add that there are lots of things you can do in bed that don't involve the possibility of pregnancy.

Less sardonically, I think the anti-abortion factions could help their cause by emphasizing responsibility in sexual conduct and practices, including greater sex education and use of condoms and other means of birth control. But, unless I am wrong, many of these anti-abortion people are also opposed to sex education and promoting birth control. If I am in error here, please correct me.

[Riverwind]

Saying repeatedly that "a fetus is not a human life..." like a mantra does not make it so. It is not considered a "human life" simply because some judges declared it legally so....and we know some decisions can be biased.

The definition of a 'human life' is nothing more than a social consensus. Virtually everyone agrees that a baby after it is born is a 'human life'. Only a minority of people believe that a fetus is a 'human life'. Insisting that a fetus is a 'human life' is no different than insisting that 'Jesus is the Son of God'. It is a religious belief - not a fact. Saying repeatedy thet a "a fetus is a human life" like a mantra does not make it so...

Every argument used by anti-abortionists is used by animal rights folks yet I have never heard any anti-abortionist say that gov't should make meat eating illegal because a minority of people believe it is not moral.

[betsy]

Virtually everyone agrees that a baby after it is born is a 'human life'. Only a minority of people believe that a fetus is a 'human life'.

Why is that?

How did it come about that this so-called "everyone" agrees that a fetus is not human?