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

[betsy]

Every argument used by anti-abortionists is used by animal rights folks

Like what arguments for example?

I do not follow animal rights people....therefore I'm not familiar with their "battle-cry".

[Guest Warwick Green]

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.

Certainly a fetus develops into a human being.

If one wants to believe that a fetus in fact is a human being, fine but it is too controversial an issue on which to build public policy on abortion.

[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.

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.

I cannot speak for others but as far as I'm concerned, teaching sex education and promoting birth control is preferable than seeing unwanted pregnancies and society-sanctioned murders .

[Riverwind]

Why is that?

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

Abortion is legal because the majority people believe that a fetus is not human in the same way that a baby is human. If a majority of people beleived a fetus is human then abortion would be illegal and there would be no debate.

In fact, even abortion foe George W Bush admitted that he believes a fetus is not really human when he said that abortion is ok in cases of incest or rape (_if_ a fetus is human it does not make a difference how it was conceived - aborting it would still be murder).

Extreme animal rights people say that raising animals for human consumption is morally wrong and that it should be made illegal. They also accuse people who do not share their beliefs about animals as 'morally weak' individuals who are only interested in their own gratification. It is the same rhetoric spewed by anti-abortion types.

[Michael Hardner]

River:

The definition of a 'human life' is nothing more than a social consensus.

Of course, you're right. But you can't blame those who believe life starts at conception for their outrage. Imagine living in a society where certain people were not considered human, and allowed their murder to happen. Wouldn't you be outraged ?

I think it's important for pro-choice people to understand this when engaging in these dialogues.

[BHS]

The definition of a 'human life' is nothing more than a social consensus.

In broad terms this is true. But for the purposes of creating a useful abortion law this is not so. The term "insane" has a broader meaning in it's vernacular use than what the legal definition of insanity entails. Any law passed about abortion would necessarily involve developing a hard and specific legal definition for "human life". Actually, to avoid the inevitable SCOC challenge it would probably require a Charter amendment, which isn't going to happen.

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'.

And yet everyone agrees that Scott Peterson killed his own "baby". Interesting, no? Since California is at the forefront of pro-abortion activity in the US, and Roe v Wade is based in part on the idea that unborn children aren't human, it wouldn't surprise me if Scott's conviction for the murder of his unborn son is eventually overturned, with quiet support from the choice crowd.

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...

What an absurd comparison. The whole point of abortion on demand is to prevent a human life from occurring. Regardless of whatever linguistic or legalistic hoops you prefer to jump through, a fetus will develop into a human being (barring it's death or removal ). That is an undeniable fact. You can't compare it to arbitrary religious opinion.

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.

So, animal rights people imitate pro-lifers but pro-lifers don't imitate animal rights people. What's your point?

I have yet to hear pro-lifers claim that humanity is a plague upon Gaia. You'd think that would apply more to their counterparts.

[Riverwind]

Of course, you're right. But you can't blame those who believe life starts at conception for their outrage.

We have created a society which is quite awkward and contradictory in many ways. On one hand, we want to let everyone choose their own religion or moral code yet at the same time we tell people that they have to put up with other people who violate their moral codes. In many cases, it is difficult to be true to one's 'moral code' while ignoring the fact that other people violate that code.

The only real resolution to this problem is constant, never ending dialog. However, this dialog must start with all sides acknowledging that their opinion is an 'opinion' and not a fact.

[BHS]

The only real resolution to this problem is constant, never ending dialog. However, this dialog must start with all sides acknowledging that their opinion is an 'opinion' and not a fact.

Law is 100% opinion. That murder is wrong and should be punished is an opinion. What constitutes excessive speed in an automobile is an opinion. How close you should build your house to the road is an opinion. You seem to be trying to close down this debate, which is about creating law, by pointing out that the law will be based on an opinion. Which is silly.

[Michael Hardner]

The only real resolution to this problem is constant, never ending dialog. However, this dialog must start with all sides acknowledging that their opinion is an 'opinion' and not a fact.

River:

That's tantamount to giving up the argument from the outset. In fact, I think if you could get the other side to agree to that, then the debate would be over. While you're trying to get to that point, though, it would be helpful to the dialogue if pro-choice people understood what they're asking of the other side.

[Riverwind]

And yet everyone agrees that Scott Peterson killed his own "baby". Interesting, no?

I am sure most people did not follow the story closely and simply heard the spin in the media talking about how this guy killed his wife and baby without realizing that the baby had not been been born yet.

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...

What an absurd comparison. The whole point of abortion on demand is to prevent a human life from occurring. Regardless of whatever linguistic or legalistic hoops you prefer to jump through, a fetus will develop into a human being (barring it's death or removal ). That is an undeniable fact. You can't compare it to arbitrary religious opinion.

Something that could develop into a human being is not the same as a human being. A fetus cannot exist outside of the mother's body until it is born. The fact that medical science can create an artifical womb that can keep premature babies alive does not change the biological facts. However, this is not a matter for biology. It is a matter of religion and social concensus.

[Riverwind]

Law is 100% opinion. That murder is wrong and should be punished is an opinion. What constitutes excessive speed in an automobile is an opinion. How close you should build your house to the road is an opinion.

The primary purpose of all laws it to ensure human beings can live peacefully with each other. Murder is punishable in some circumstances - society has a long list of situations were murder can be justified. Speeding laws protect safety and zoning regulations and ensure cities develop in a way that benefits everyone. The details of speeding and zoning laws are extremely arbitrary but that does not take away from the real purpose of the laws.

A law against abortion cannot be justified as necessary for the peaceful co-existance of people in society. It can only be justified by appealling to a some religious principle that decrees a that a fetus is a human and therefore cannot be killed. That is what makes it different from most other laws.

[Michael Hardner]

Riverwind:

A law against abortion cannot be justified as necessary for the peaceful co-existance of people in society.

Again, you're right but the consequences of this type of government can be unsettling. For example, if 90% of the population thinks that homosexuals are evil, then peaceful co-existance could be assured by enshrining discrimination against them in law.

So we have... relative morality... absolute morality... interplay between them....

In short, politics.

[BHS]

Something that could develop into a human being is not the same as a human being. A fetus cannot exist outside of the mother's body until it is born. The fact that medical science can create an artifical womb that can keep premature babies alive does not change the biological facts. However, this is not a matter for biology. It is a matter of religion and social concensus.

"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.)

[August1991]

Abortion is legal because the majority people believe that a fetus is not human in the same way that a baby is human. If a majority of people beleived a fetus is human then abortion would be illegal and there would be no debate.

Riverwind, I have always been troubled by this line of reasoning because it shifts the debate on to the question: what constitutes life?

That is a moral and technical question without end. Do we define life as the moment when a foetus is viable outside the whom? Do we define life as the moment when a "consensus" defines it to exist?

Arguing about when life commences will lead nowhere and I don't think it will resolve the question of abortion or even provide any new insights.

Rather than argue metaphysics, it might be more useful to view the question pragmatically. If we were to forbid abortions, would that mean putting women who had illegal abortions in prison? How would we do this?

[BHS]

A law against abortion cannot be justified as necessary for the peaceful co-existance of people in society. It can only be justified by appealling to a some religious principle that decrees a that a fetus is a human and therefore cannot be killed. That is what makes it different from most other laws.

I notice you qualify your statement with "most". Let me flesh out some of the reasons why.

Under your logic, laws designed to protect the environment can all be chucked, since they don't have anything to do with the peaceful co-existence of people.

The idea that animals should have rights and should be protected from abuse is no more logical than any religious belief. Chuck those laws too.

Insider trading doesn't hurt anybody, at least not directly. It just makes the market unfair for small investors. But the universe is inherently unfair. Out the window.

Soliciting prostitution is merely a financial transaction pertaining to an act which isn't a crime. Defenestrate.

Selling kilos of heroin to willing adults within sight of a schoolyard only riles up parents because they don't realize that the junkies are only hurting themselves. They need some anger management skills, so that we can all just get along.

Do you want me to find other examples?

[BHS]

Rather than argue metaphysics, it might be more useful to view the question pragmatically. If we were to forbid abortions, would that mean putting women who had illegal abortions in prison? How would we do this?

If "human life" has be legally redefined to include fetuses, you put women who have illegal abortions in prison by charging them with murder. If the "doctor" who performed the abortion is a woman, maybe they can be cellmates.

[Riverwind]

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

"Murder" by definition is killing someone without a good excuse. So saying "murder is wrong" is redundant. It is like saying "doing bad things is wrong". Killing someone in self defence is excusable. Killing someone accidentally is excusable if your carelessness did not cause the accident. Killing someone accidentally while dropping bombs on "terrorists" is excusable (at least in some people's minds). Killing someone because they did not tell the authorities that a terrorist attack might occur is excusable.

In all cases, we choose to punish for some killing but not others based whether the "social harms" caused by the killing outweigh the "social harms" caused by punishing the person who did the killing.

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

As with "killing an adult" you would have to establish that the "social harm" of killing of a fetus outweighs the "social harm" of forcing a woman to carry a child she does not want before you can say it is "wrong".

[Riverwind]

Again, you're right but the consequences of this type of government can be unsettling. For example, if 90% of the population thinks that homosexuals are evil, then peaceful co-existance could be assured by enshrining discrimination against them in law.

Peaceful co-existance also implies fairness to all. Allowing discrimination towards one group of people undermines the principle of fairness. However, I agree that we will always find contradictions and inconsistancies. Unfortunately, I cannot see how we could run our society in any other way.

[Michael Hardner]

Peaceful co-existance also implies fairness to all. Allowing discrimination towards one group of people undermines the principle of fairness. However, I agree that we will always find contradictions and inconsistancies. Unfortunately, I cannot see how we could run our society in any other way.

See, now you're contradicting yourself. You resent the idea that the other group wants to define 'murder' for everybody else, and you want to define 'discrimination' for everybody.

We should run our society as we have been, but we should re-emphasize dialogue and agreeing-to-disagree rather than allowing both sides to broadcast their opinion with equal time.

[Riverwind]

We should run our society as we have been, but we should re-emphasize dialogue and agreeing-to-disagree.

That is more or less my argument for the status quo on the abortion issue.

[betsy]

Saying repeatedy thet a "a fetus is a human life" like a mantra does not make it so...

But, it had always been so. It had always been considered a human life by society. Hence we need not have to remind ourselves.

Because there was the concern for women who were dying in sleazy abortion places...and of unwanted pregnancies...that birth controls came into play. But, it was not enough. Women were still going to these abortion places. So, abortion became legal....for up to a certain period of time.

All those time, the argument was for the concern for these women who were dying and getting disabled by botched up abortions.

Then suddenly, the argument is about "women's rights to do what they want with their body."

Abortion for up to a certain period of time is no longer acceptable. Now, a woman can have it even to the last minute before the infant's head is out. We know that manipulated breaching and deliberate killing of the infant happens.

If we've steadily escalated from simple birth controls to deliberate murdering of late-term babies.....what's next on the agenda? Apart-from-the-womb killings? Justifiable infanticide? We've heard of babies and children being thrown from bridges...so post-partum child killings?

[betsy]

Abortion is legal because the majority people believe that a fetus is not human in the same way that a baby is human. If a majority of people beleived a fetus is human then abortion would be illegal and there would be no debate.

Therefore ethnic cleansing should be legal. If majority of a population believe that a minority group is like a disease that ought to be purged....then it can be done.

Did we have a referendum on abortion, btw? How do you know that majority do not believe a fetus is human?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Abortion for up to a certain period of time is no longer acceptable. Now, a woman can have it even to the last minute before the infant's head is out. We know that manipulated breaching and deliberate killing of the infant happens.

I think the public would go along with restrictions on late term abortions; certainly the polls suggest that. But the protagonists won't go along with that resolution. When you beleve that the fetus is a human life it's hard to accept that an abortion is okay at 6 weeks but not at 26. As for the feminists it's the "control of the body" issue so they will never agree to any restrictions at any time.

[Riverwind]

Therefore ethnic cleansing should be legal. If majority of a population believe that a minority group is like a disease that ought to be purged....then it can be done.

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.

[Riverwind]

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.