Terry wrote:real life wrote:
Terry wrote: As I said several times already (you should try responding to what is posted instead of arguments that only exist in your own mind), 3rd trimester abortions ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE DONE SIMPLY FOR CONVENIENCE.
This is simply not true.
Any woman who chooses to have an abortion for "convenience" will do so very early in the pregnancy instead of enduring 6 months of pregnancy and a more difficult, dangerous and expensive procedure. Late-term abortions are definitely NOT convenient.
Quote:Terry wrote:A human being may be killed to save the life or health of the mother.
These are two different issues. I have no problem with abortion to save the life of the mother.
On the other hand, the health exceptions as they exist today are so broadly crafted as to be indistinguishable from convenience.
And I have no problem with abortion to preserve the health of the mother, nor does the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade wrote:1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
Please state the laws that permit abortion for "convenience" in the third trimester. Please list any American physician that you know of who will perform third trimester abortions for "convenience."
Quote:Terry wrote:And an abortion may be done to reduce her suffering IF THE FETUS IS NON-VIABLE DUE TO GENETIC DEFECTS.
What suffering are you referring to?
How often is a fetus thought to be genetically defective when it is not? In my own experience, I know several women who gave birth to perfectly healthy babies that were supposedly 'defective' and doctors pushed them to abort.
The suffering that we experience during the third trimester and childbirth, of course.
Given the number of diagnostic techniques available, I doubt that any physician would declare a fetus to be genetically defective and recommend abortion unless she had confirmed it. I don't know how often mistakes were made in the past, but what matters here is the current state of medical science.
Quote:I believe the unborn is a living human being at the moment of conception. There is NO medical evidence to counter this, and plenty that supports it. Those who disagree should then be able to answer: If the unborn is NOT 'living' at the moment of conception, then when does it become 'living'? and If the unborn is not 'human' at the moment of conception, then what species is it? The unborn's DNA shows it to be a distinct human being, NOT a 'part of the mother's body'.
There is irrefutable medical evidence that a fertilized egg is not a human being: It is a single cell that has no brain, thoughts, feelings - or legal rights. It is living, growing human tissue with human DNA, but it is NOT a human being. It becomes a human being when it develops a brain that might be able to generate rudimentary awareness, which is impossible before 24 weeks and probable at 30 weeks gestation.
It is absurd and arrogant and dangerous to the health and rights of women to claim that a single cell (or cluster of cells) is a human being, and use that belief to deny us the right to control what happens to our bodies. This slippery slope could lead to pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions, pressure to conform to society's expectations of marriage and motherhood, women being barred from certain jobs, and becoming second-class citizens again. (Hey, that's just as likely as YOUR slippery slope argument.
)
I don't believe that acknowledging the right of women to choose whether to continue a pregnancy causes any of the slippery slope things that you fear. I don't believe that "infanticide is increasingly tolerated" or that the elderly and handicapped are denied medical treatment in this country. No one proposes the creation of human beings for experimentation, but IMO the creation of mindless human embryos for research that may save real lives is ethical.
I notice that you do not mention increasing opposition to capital punishment, guns, cigarettes, drunk driving, domestic abuse, and the war in Iraq, all of which indicate society's commitment to saving lives.
I am still waiting for your answers to the questions I asked you earlier.
Terry,
Your questions:
Should parents be barred from choosing an IVF embryo with a congenital handicap over a normal one? If so, who defines "normal"?
What does it mean to have "unalienable rights" if they can be alienated at the whim of the society you live in?
Do you really consider a mindless embryo to be your equal?
Well, then, where do YOU think rights originate?
My answers (I think I've actually covered all of these points with you previously):
No. Both embryos should be protected. I think I've stated as much on many occasions.
My view of rights is the same as the Founders. Unalienable rights, including the right to life , comes from God . And it is the purpose of government to protect these rights. Government can , in limited circumstances and WITH DUE PROCESS, execute those convicted of heinous crimes. This hardly constitutes a whim. Your view on the other hand allows the whim of one person to determine if another lives.
One need not be my 'equal' to be a living human being. The right of living human beings to have life protected by law is what is at issue, not their stage of development or their IQ. If you think life should be denied to some living human beings and not others, then we are on a slippery slope indeed and I documented some of the results of that over the past generation. If you think the unborn is NOT a living human being, then you should be able to answer: what species is the unborn if you think it is not human? and when does the unborn begin to live if it is not living?
Your requirement that 'awareness' is required to be a human being leaves lots of folks, such as those in a coma , in a precarious position.
One can easily argue that their lack of self awareness makes them no longer human, could you not?
But what of those who have come out of coma after years, or decades?
Terry wrote:I don't believe that acknowledging the right of women to choose whether to continue a pregnancy causes any of the slippery slope things that you fear. I don't believe that "infanticide is increasingly tolerated" or that the elderly and handicapped are denied medical treatment in this country.
You need to wake up.
Terry wrote:No one proposes the creation of human beings for experimentation, but IMO the creation of mindless human embryos for research that may save real lives is ethical.
Really? So, why not let them grow beyond the embryo stage and experiment on them at 10, 12, 15, 20 weeks if you are so sure they are not human?
In fact, why not let them grow right up to your 24 week threshold and experiment to our heart's desire since they are no more than 'human tissue' as you stated?
Any moral objections from you on experimenting on a 23 week old unborn child, Terry? If so, why?
