NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Point X

blatham wrote:

Dare I enter this?

Outside of such a faith stance, where it is held that life commences at conception with the implantation of soul stuff, or outside of an arguably quite arbitrary assignment of point x (ferrous's union of egg and sperm) in the biological process, there seems to be no way to say this is life now, but earlier it wasn't.

This is subjective, both on your part, and mine. My belief is not based on facts, but rather my own personal belief. The purpose of this article, is the "defining" when that growing living organism, that will develop in to a living human being, is afforded equal protection, under the law. Some State laws, seem to have defined it at around eight to thirteen weeks. Federal Laws have defined it only after birth.

Also, I might add, that at the time of conception, the chromosomal features of the individual, are developing, and that Point X has not been established. Once the DNA is set, all of the traits of that individual are in place. It is my opinion, at this time, the life that is growing, is defined as that particular individual. Point X has been established.

blatham wrote:

I frankly do not have a problem with the notion that a purposeful act of violence which ends with the unnecessary death of the fetus might be considered murder or manslaughter, in keeping with the normal differentiation of these two terms.

I do, however, have a big fat problem with the duplicitous agenda of some of the proponents for such legislation.

So, until Republicans and Democrats can agree with one another on this common issue, or Hell freezes over, you are failing to commit yourself, in petitioning your government to enact legislation to pass a comprehensive law, clearly defining the rights of unborn children.

I am not implying that you endorse this particular bill. Rather, prompt your representatives, in drafting legislation that would accomplish the same goal, while ensuring that "Pro-Lifers" are not infringing on "Pro-Choice" advocates rights (or vice-versa.) This is not a question concerning abortion. This is a question of human rights Unborn, human rights.

0 Replies

ferrous

Well, I'm Canadian, so the dilemma is not nearly so acute as you have it in the US.

But I'm afraid that I would, if I were American, push very strongly against this bill being passed. The reason being that it very clearly is a stealth bill by the radical Christian right who do hope to use it as legal precedent.

0 Replies

Timber,

Your concept of where to draw the line is agreeable to me. But I would add a caveat. The healthy development of a human being depends on the willing care of a mother or other care giver, after birth. Babies born into this world without this willing care giver are at a great disadvantage.
But that is really an aside.

Blatham and Frank are making sense to me on the legislation. The radical Christian right (as opposed to left, not as opposed to wrong) are using this issue to make political hay. To use this case in this way is. for me, deplorable.

0 Replies

Compassion is a Virtue...

Lola wrote:

Timber,

Your concept of where to draw the line is agreeable to me. But I would add a caveat. The healthy development of a human being depends on the willing care of a mother or other care giver, after birth. Babies born into this world without this willing care giver are at a great disadvantage.
But that is really an aside.

Blatham and Frank are making sense to me on the legislation. The radical Christian right (as opposed to left, not as opposed to wrong) are using this issue to make political hay. To use this case in this way is. for me, deplorable.

Yes, I agree, that really is an aside. "The healthy development of a human being depends on the willing care of a mother or other care giver, after birth."I have no idea, what this has to do with this article. In most circumstances, this is true, in others, it is found that children growing up in dysfunctional families, grow up to, rise above the insanity and or depravity. In your out of context statement, one could imagine that you are proposing that only a baby, born to an accepting mother, is a viable human being. Are you saying in your caveat, "that if the mother rejects the child, after birth, then is it should be not unlawful to terminate it's life? Are you stating, that the unborn child and even in some cases, the born child, has no legal rights protecting it from the mother, but should have these legal rights for anyone else that would do the child harm?

As for Blatham and Aprisa, they have said nothing. The context, here is not partisan politics, but in clearly defining at which point, is a child offered equal protection, under the law. Blatham and Aprisa have failed in this explanation. On the other hand, your response makes me shudder. Your response, makes one wonder, if in fact, you have moved Point X outside of the womb, and squarely in the mothers hands. Now the next question, is how far out of the womb, has Point X been moved.

Here, I am going to agree with you, in a defined context. I am a proponent of Euthanasia. I see no reason for animals to suffer. For me. Point X hangs over our heads, and at that time that we are no longer functional beings, the option should be open to terminate our suffering. But never will I agree to end the life of a viable human being.

Pitiful, responses, so far, other than Timbers At least there, the question was answered. Not that I agree with it, but clearly a definitive stance.

0 Replies

If one holds a faith stance such as Sofia or Snood, then certain questions are, or become, answered to their satisfaction. However, they ought not to expect others to be necessarily satisfied with those same answers.
___________________

I made no mention of religion in this thread.
I asked a question about how one would feel about having their unborn baby killed during the commission of a crime-- Would they feel they were entitled to force the killer to face the consequence of that killing, or not?

0 Replies

Non-Partisan

blatham wrote:

ferrous

Well, I'm Canadian, so the dilemma is not nearly so acute as you have it in the US.

But I'm afraid that I would, if I were American, push very strongly against this bill being passed. The reason being that it very clearly is a stealth bill by the radical Christian right who do hope to use it as legal precedent.

I could care less about this bill... All I'm asking for, is a stance on the placement of Point X. So far, we have at conception, the formation of the beings DNA, eight to thirteen weeks into the development of the fetus, at the point the fetus can survive outside the host, and now possibly somewhere out of the birth canal.

If we need to ask, where are those concerned souls, that "Could" draft legislation that would satisfy the needs to protect unborn children, from criminals. I could care less, about partisan differences, but in this case, it is leaving these families at risk. I have drafted a letter to my representatives, urging that they not arbitrarily pass such a one sided bill, but work together in drafting and supporting a bill that could truly represent all of the people's, best interests.

0 Replies

ferrous, the problem with laws is that they have to be the right thing in all possible permutations.

If a law is made that says that people can be prosecuted for killing a fetus, it is a very short hop skip and a jump away from prosecuting people who seek an abortion. You, for example, say that life begins at conception. So if a woman is 12 weeks pregnant, and is punched in the stomach, and loses the fetus, that should be criminal, right? The person who punched her should be prosecuted for murder, right?

But what if a woman is raped, and finds out at 12 weeks that she is pregnant, and chooses to abort. Should she be prosecuted for murder?

0 Replies

So, there should be no penalty for killing someone's unborn baby?

There are laws against killing or harming animals.

The Day After Pill should answer all rape pregnancies. Women are surely aware of being raped. And the rape argument is really a lame smoke-screen for abortion rights, IMO. The overwhelming number of abortions are not due to rape. Of course, Planned Parenthood makes it hard to find out these statistics. Then, they wouldn't have the Rape Pregnancy to keep falling back on.

No sensible person is going to require a raped person to bear a child of rape--and as I said, the Day After Pill solves this overblown question.

0 Replies

Do you think there is ever a legitimate reason to have an abortion, Sofia? Or do you think abortion should be outlawed, period?

0 Replies

I agree with Timber, Sofia. I simply added that a baby requires the attention of a care giver to survive outside of the mother's womb. Of course I'm not suggesting your silly scenario. Once a baby can survive and is viable outside the mother's womb, it's up to those of us here to help find a care giver for it, if the mother is not able or willing.

The proposed legislation is obviously a devious (but not so subtle) attempt to make abortion illegal. The question of abortion and when and why it's indicated is very complicated and not a subject that lends itself to black and white answers. People who want to turn this question into one of legality make rational discussion of the many conflicts and dilemmas associated with the abortion question impossible.

0 Replies

sofia

No, no personal faith stance was mentioned on this thread by you. But as we both are aware, it has come up elsewhere. And the point at issue is not, it should be noted, one that falls necessarily as a partisan issue, as Snood and I share many points of political policy but differ here.

ferrous

I gather you are unsatisfied with various posts above. That's unfortunate, but I simply don't share your opinion on point X because I see it as being entirely an exercise in arbitrary establishment of some point on a graduated scale. One can, for the purpose of social organization, pick such a point (eg age when folks can drink, or be drafted, or drive a car) and that's fine and dandy were it not that this other issue waits in the wings dressed like a philosophical dilemma but sporting Jerry Falwell's unhandsome kisser.

Though it is entirely unfortunate that some fetuses are killed as a consequence of criminal violence on the female bearing the fetus, this event has occured how many times in your city in the last year? You say you don't care about the bill, but many of us do very much care about this bill, or those like it.

So the problem becomes...support the rationale for one innocuous sounding bit of legislation and at the same time, set up the absolute certainty that the radical religious right will then take step two with it. As I am deeply opposed to step two, I'm not hopping on board your choo choo train heading that way.

0 Replies

I think he should charged with murder of the unborn child as well.

As far as the "God" thing goes, I believe in God or atleast a higher being simply because we are here. I always believed that nothing comes from nothing, so something had to create us, although I don't believe in the bible or organized religion.

0 Replies

I do not think R v W should be overturned. I DO think abortion should be far more regulated.

My spiritual beliefs do not enter into my opinion about abortion, or any other political matter, except Capital Punishment.

I don't know how my scenario can be judged as silly. I didn't offer a scenario.

0 Replies

OK, cool. Thanks for clarifying, Sofia.

I was concerned about the ban on "late-term abortions" for very similar reasons to why I am concerned about this issue, so I will refer to an article I found very interesting.

Likely Ban on Abortion Technique Leaves Doctors Uneasy

This is very similar because the immediate issue seems to be a no-brainer. It is wrong for someone to kill a wanted, already-loved fetus. Duh. It is wrong for someone to put off having an abortion until a fetus is viable. Duh. But what are the implications of making that illegal, and how can that be mishandled?

Quote:

Doctors say they fear that even if they give up this particular procedure, the law will still apply to other techniques that are regularly used to end pregnancies after 16 weeks. The law, many experts say, is vaguely written. It does not spell out the intact D&X procedure.

"The way they define the procedure in the bill, it could easily be attributed to a wide variety of abortion procedures," said Dr. Paul D. Blumenthal, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Johns Hopkins University. Even if doctors begin abortions intending to obey the law, he added, they may be forced by medical circumstances to perform procedures that violate it.

This bill is being sold as doing away with only the medically unnecessary late term abortions -- the "duh" part. But in practice, it is a vaguely written law that could make currently legal and medically necessary abortions illegal, too.

I see this as a very similar issue. I agree with the "duh" part -- of course it is horrible if a wanted, viable, near-birth fetus is purposely killed by an assailant -- but am deeply concerned of the implications and suspicious of motivations.

0 Replies

soz

I think your concern is justified. This is a stealth bill. There are folks within the anti-choice camp who are working very hard to find any avenue (legal or political) to ban abortion. Your link is a good example, and this proposed bill arises out of the same motive.

sofia

I do understand that your faith stance is not simply some unreflected knee-jerk position. Fortunately, I've never been in the position where I had to make a choice on abortion or to counsel a partner on the issue. I know, now having a daughter, that I would feel no small anxiety at the loss of a potential little creature as lovely as my girl was (and remains, at times). But I will argue here and elsewhere that the choice ought to lie with the parents, and most of all, with the female. I don't think the state has a proper over-riding role here. And it would be a bit of historical amnesia to ignore the role of church in shaping present western views on this matter.

0 Replies

This law would not have protected Laci Peterson's baby or any other fetus. Any scum who would assault or murder a pregnant woman (or anyone else, for that matter) is not likely to weigh the fine points of the law before acting.

Since the perpetrator would not even have to know that the woman was pregnant to be charged, it seems that the only real purpose of this law is to establish the legal status of a fetus as a person.

We do not know when - or if - a fetus is endowed with a soul, or whether there is a God who cares whether unborn babies live or die. Probably not, since 2/3 of fertilized eggs and about 15% of fetuses die of natural causes. In any case, federal laws should not be used to impose religious beliefs on others. So is there any rational basis for deciding when a fetus becomes a person and acquires limited legal rights?

Yes, there is. The sole criterion for personhood is sentience. The fetal brain develops to the point that consciousness MIGHT be possible at around 24 weeks gestation, when brain waves begin to show regular patterns. Before that point, it cannot be considered a person and is the property of the woman in whose womb it resides. Like any other property, she may dispose of it if she chooses but must be compensated for any harm done to it by others.

We would probably all agree that there is little ethical difference between killing a late-term baby before or after birth, and that anyone who deprives parents of a wanted child should be punished. The real question is whether killing a developing fetus is legally the same as killing a person who is born and has experienced conscious interaction with other human beings. Who really has the right to determine the legal personhood of a fetus: its parents, doctors, scientists, lawyers, the Pope, or anyone who wants to impose his/her personal beliefs on everyone else?

I agree that there should be retribution for the murder of any person, but if society chooses to grant legal status to a third trimester fetus, pregnant women who use nicotine, alcohol or other drugs or fail to provide proper nourishment to their unborn baby could find themselves facing charges as well.

IMO, third trimester abortions are ethical anytime the life or health of the mother is threatened, the fetus is non-viable or has severe defects. Doctors should be free to perform WHATEVER procedure is safest for the woman. If that means crushing the skull of a fetus that is going to die anyway, so be it. God/nature does far worse things to its creations.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

No sensible person is going to require a raped person to bear a child of rape--and as I said, the Day After Pill solves this overblown question.

Some people consider this an abortion/murder etc.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Sofia wrote:
No sensible person is going to require a raped person to bear a child of rape--and as I said, the Day After Pill solves this overblown question.

Some people consider this an abortion/murder etc.

But check up on your biology... The morning after pill, prevents the sperm from impregnating the egg. Usually, fertilization occurs, no sooner than at least 24 hours after sex. This pill is a form of contraception, and "Not" an abortion.

Of course, you could always argue, that all forms of contraception is abortion/murder. There will always be some (Pope John Paul II) that will agree with that.

0 Replies

Very well said, Terry.

0 Replies

Terry,

You make several excellent points. As I read your post, I began to wonder, where would it stop? If those who have certain religious beliefs can tell me what I do to myself and my baby before it's born, by what rationale would they stop telling me what to do after the birth of the baby. If I didn't for example take my child to church (their church) would that be considered damaging to the child and therefore a crime? Or if I smoked, drank too much coffee, or whatever. Could I expect to see the religion police at my front door? Probably not. But if not, why not, given the rationale presented by so many anti-choice people?

0 Replies

NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know