Is a fetus private property owned by its carrier?

[originalpckelly]

Poll question: Is a fetus private property owned by its carrier?

[bemildred]

1. Human beings are not property. Slavery was outlawed. nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. Fetuses are not human beings n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

7. A 9-Month-Old Fetus is Not A Human?

Yikes!

[bemildred]

14. They definitely are.

The process is continuous from conception to death.

[Der Blaue Engel]

220. My turn to say yikes n/t

[bemildred]

It is a mistake to let yourself get distracted by this hairsplitting over terminology.

A fetus is most certainly a human being. That has nothing to do with a woman's right to decide whether to carry it to term or not. I have been associated with a number of women who got abortions, and I supported them in making their choice. None of them had any illusions about the seriousness of the matter.

[AliceBlitzstein]

254. I agree with your post bemildred nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

304. A human being, IMO, implies a person with legal rights

So I'm not trying to split hairs, but to point out legal distinctions that have huge ramifications for the real human lives involved (aka "hosts").

[bemildred]

313. The term has several different meanings.

Yours is one of them. Confusing them can get you muddled up. I was not accusing you in particular of splitting hairs, and if you thought so I apologize, that was not my intent. I'm was explaining my views on the issue and how I arrived at them. I agree completely that it is a legal issue, and that it is the law that defines what rights "human beings" have and when they aquire them.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Depends on The Gestational Age

No?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. You're trying reason. This polls ABHORS reason! It demands HYSTERICS! SLOGANS! B&W THINKING!

What in the name of God are you THINKING, man?

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Well, Since I'm A Republican Who Hates Powerful Women

(or so it's been said on DU)

it's just par for the course.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Some people treat analog questions as if they were digital.

(Say PING if you don't understand)

[Colobo]

12. Of course! I was an 8 month baby!

[question everything]

277. And obviously a healthy one

We need to re emphasize that late term abortions are performed when the fetuses are dead, or severely deformed who would die soon after birth.

These are not "oops, I really do not want this baby." No one would perform such an abortion.

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. Other: A fetus is tissue inside of a woman's body

Seems pretty simple to me. I won't mess with your testicles if you don't mess with my uterus.

[Dhalgren]

11. You statement seems completely acceptable to me. It really isn't

anyone's business except the woman (if the woman chooses to involve another person, that, too, is her choice). I am entitled to my opinion on any subject under the sun, but that is all it is - opinion. The business of a woman's body is solely that woman's business, period.

[originalpckelly]

16. A fetus isn't a human being, what is it?

If it's not human, then it might be an animal of another species. It has human DNA, however, so it can't be an animal.

Then it could be public property, but no one has a right but one person to control it.

That leaves private property or unclaimed natural resource.

I suppose a fetus could be burned in lieu of heating oil, so it could be a natural resource. Of course the one person has control over it, so it must be some type of private property.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

84. I think it's a human and no human has a right to live inside another one's body at any time

they can be evicted at any time for any reason. If you have a moral problem with evicting them then don't do it but the government has no right to force a person to donate a kidney to another person or let them be a parasite in another person's body

[happyslug]

195. That was NOT the law even under Roe vs Wade.

The traditional time when a Fetus became a Human in Western Thought was when the Fetus became "quickening". i.e. When the Fetus could, in least in theory, survive outside the womb. Under Roe vs Wade the term Quickening was NOT used, but generally a Woman was quick with child whenever she entered her third trimester of pregnancy, thus Roe vs Wade permitted the state to impose whatever restrictions the state deemed necessary for such third trimester pregnancy (while saying woman had almost complete right to have an abortion prior to that time period). This had been the Common law rules since the Middle ages (and had been the Rule in The Catholic Church till 1869 when During Vatican I the present rule was adopted).

Surprising, most Christian denominations followed the pre-1869 Catholic Rule until the Medical Community started to expand into what had been for centuries the domain of Midwives. Various reasons for the switch from Midwives to Doctors during the 1800s have been forwarded, but the most likely one is that as the state forced the Medical Community to improve, the Doctors demanded and received the right to be the ONLY provider of Medical Services. People tend to forget that prior to the mid-1800s most Doctors did NOT go to ANY medical School, like Midwives and Lawyers (And most other professions) you learn while working for someone else who was in the profession. Now there had been medical schools since the late Middle Ages, but it was rare for these to be more than one year in length even as late as the US Civil War.

As to Midwives, the Medical Community viewed the Midwives as competitors, with many women preferring midwives to medical doctors (my own father, born in 1919 believed he was delivered by a Midwife not a Doctor). The medical profession during the 1800s (and increasingly during the late 1800s) demanded that giving birth was a Medical act and had to be performed by a Medical Doctor, so Midwives were slowly forced out of the business of giving birth (and providing other services, including information on contraceptives AND providing abortions).

One of the consequences of this movement was the replacement of the "Birthing Chair" by the table. Recent research have indicated that the birthing chair of the Midwives were easier on the woman, for it was design to drop out the baby into the arms of the Midwife. The mother had arms to hold onto, and sit to sit down with a hole for the baby to exit her womb and into the arms of the midwife. Doctors preferred tables for they had more control over the birth sequence, then if they used a birthing chair.

Now back to the Common law. When the women pirates Mary Reed and Anne Bonny were captured in 1720, both "Plead their Bellies" i.e. they were "quick" with child. This delayed their execution (Through Mary Read seems to have died in Prison, Anne Bonny released was arranged by her Father, a planter in South Carolina). To plead their belly, both Pirate had to be examined, but by a mid-wife to see if they were "quick" with child, not a medical Doctor.

Thus the law, till it was changed during the 1800s, was that a Fetus was a human being once it "Quicken" i.e. entered its third trimester of life. If the Fetus was NOT quicken, then its mother could be executed for the fetus was NOT a Separate Human Being.

Other Cultures have had different definition. Ancient Rome permitted not only abortion throughout the Woman's pregnancy, but even infanticide up to the child being one year of age.

Thus the comment you have Four "Cutoff" periods when it comes to when A fetus becomes a Human Being. The First is conception. Once conceived it is a Human Being.

The Second, is "Quickening" i.e. when the Fetus could, in Theory, survive outside the womb, this has been the most common rule in Western Culture.

Third, is Birth, permitting abortion until birth, but not afterward, Surprising this has been the least accepted cut off, for you have cases where child born weeks earlier than birth survived. If such a fetus could survive, why then permit killing an older fetus just because it is still in the womb? Thus Quickening has been a more popular cut off then birth.

Forth, infanticide, i.e. up to the time the child can talk and walk. This reflects the huge brain development that occurs after birth in Humans. At birth a Child is about the same proportion of head to body he or she will be at birth. From Birth to about 9 months you have Massive development of the brain, thus at about nine months the child is about 1/3 head and 2/3 body (The body develops at a steady pace, unlike the accelerated pace of the Brain). Do to this brain development, children age one and up can interact with adults, and thus almost always viewed as "People", but prior to that huge brain development many society (Ancient Rome for one) viewed such children as NOT being Human.

These are the four cutoffs used to determine when a fetus/child becomes a Human. I have to go with Quickening, for it lasted for centuries and appears to be the best cut off after Conception. Conception is a problem for most women do not know if they are pregnant till weeks later. Often the Woman does not find out till two weeks later when she miss her period, through sometime six weeks later when the ovary that issued the now eight week old fetus misses (Fetus are aged from the last period of a woman, thus, once impregnated, the woman is already two weeks pregnant, it is just how Doctors measure pregnancies). Thus it is possible for a woman to be eight weeks pregnant before she ever knows she is pregnant (and that assumes she is "regular"). That barely gives her one month before she enters her Second Trimester of pregnancy, the the stricter rules permitted even under Roe vs Wade (Through the Rules for the Second Trimester is NOT the absolute bar the Third Trimester represent for during the third trimester a woman can be banned from having an abortion unless the lack of an abortion could lead to the mother's death or great bodily injury).

For a synopsis on the history of Abortion see:
http://www.tab.to/law/abortion-law.html

[Proud2BAmurkin]

227. I know but it's the right of abortion as I see it. The trimester thing is stupid to me.

nt

[happyslug]

268. The trimester has been the law for at least 1000 years.

The issue is viability, can the Fetus survive outside the womb? If yes, you can not abort, if no you can. Just look at two fetuses at the same gestation age. If both are 30 weeks old, do you treat them differently just because one is outside the womb and the other is still in the womb? Both can survive outside the womb, should the mother be able to kill the one still in her womb but forbidden to kill the one outside her womb? Even the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had problems with permitting such a situation (Please note if continuing the pregnancy would cause great harm to the Mother, even in Roe vs Wade the pregnancy could be terminated, thus my comparison assumes two fetuses that would cause no harm to their mothers).

This is the classic dilemma of how do you provide equal protection of the laws to BOTH fetuses? If you permit the mother to kill one, why not the other? If you forbid the mother to kill one, should you also forbid her from killing the other? If you view NETHER as human, then both can be killed (but remember one is already outside the womb). If you view one as a Human being and thus NOT subject to being killed because it is outside the womb, why NOT give that same right to the fetus in the womb that can survive outside the womb?

Furthermore most women do NOT wait for the third trimester to have an abortion. Such third trimester abortions are rare (and often comes under the concept that continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother). Thus even my theatrical situation is rare (i.e. the fetus still in the womb MUST present no extra harm to the mother then is normal for a pregnancy when the woman wants a third trimester pregnancy). My comment is SOME CUTOFF HAS TO BE SET, and the best cutoff is the one that has been used for 1000 years in the West, i.e. the fetus had quicken.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

316. I don't think the viability matters as to whether the government can force a person to

allow another person to continue to live inside of their body. To me viability isn't part of the equation.

[RC Quake]

307. But they were invited in, weren't they?

"I think it's a human and no human has a right to live inside another one's body at any time they can be evicted at any time for any reason."

To equate this to a landlord/renter situation is just sick, IMO. Sorry.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

317. No, the person consented to sex, not to having another party move in to their body

there was no other party at the time of sex to consent to.

[Colobo]

13. At what point they stop being just tissue?

[renie408]

176. But his testicles wouldn't last long outside of his body. An eight month old fetus can.

At some point, whether anybody wants to admit it or not, a fetus does become 'other' than the mother carrying it. I DO NOT ascribe to the 'life begins at the moment of conception' rule. I do think that this is not as simple an issue as people are portraying it.

[Dhalgren]

206. It is simple when you make the simple statement that a woman

has control over her own body. You don't, I don't, the state doesn't the society doesn't - just the woman, herself. Everything else becomes secondary to that idea, unless you want to say that in some circumstances a woman becomes the property or the charge of the state, but I don't think that is what is being said, surely...

[AngryAmish]

314. Does a person have a right to sell a kidney?

[stirlingsliver]

9. Teeth Are. Brains Are. Fingers Are. Lungs Are.

So are fetuses.

I don't understand why this question is even being asked.

[RB TexLa]

10. They are oddities of the law

Outside of someone's right to control and regulate one's own body, they are afforded rights as a person.



Others may be charged with a crime for harming them.

They may inherit property.

They can be party to a lawsuit.

They can have their custody considered in court proceedings.

[bleedingheart]

15. technically they are parasites

they live off the host....

[Colobo]

17. Children under the age of 18 are parasites too

They still live off the host... :)

[bleedingheart]

29. oh I hear ya....

however those parasites can be made do do small chores and eventually larger ones...and you can torture them ...

"If you don't clean this living room up, you won't see your nintendo again?"

bwahahahahah

[jgraz]

266. As are most Republicans

Oooh...that gave me a great idea for a new abortion law :evilgrin:

[originalpckelly]

18. But does the host own them?

I mean if I have a tapeworm in me, I think I can elect to choose to take it home with me or to have it discarded as medical waste.

So it's like private property.

[bleedingheart]

27. yes...they own the parasite while it resides in utero...

[originalpckelly]

32. Very interesting. So a fetus is the legal equivalent of a slave?

[Colobo]

33. I don't think women see fetuses as such.

[bleedingheart]

42. no...because technically slaves were purchased to produce

either in the form of physical or perhaps sexual labor...

A fetus will just suck you dry of resources ..producing not much for quite some time...from conception onward...and if the fetus actually leaves the uterus after full gestation and leaving you with the gift of hemorrhoids and stretch marks.....it will still suck all your resources and cost you oodles of money, time and sleep...

they aren't of any "slave" like value...until they are old enough to fetch a beer or a remote...and even then they do it at their whimsy in most cases.

...i do want to note that I have two kids of my own..

[originalpckelly]

49. Well of course a fetus isn't a slave, it's the legal equivalent of one.

Big difference.

[bleedingheart]

54. I still don't view a fetus as a slave...it is really a parasite

how does it "slave" in your terms?

and how isn't an 8 year old child a slave by your same reasoning?

[originalpckelly]

59. Well then maybe it's a dog...

of course someone can't just up and kill a dog without it being ill, so that doesn't exactly fit.

[bleedingheart]

61. actually unwanted dogs are put down...

happens every day....

[Colobo]

66. Comparing dogs to human fetuses/potential humans...

is it a valid comparison?

[originalpckelly]

70. I mean some people hate dogs and don't want them jumping up on them...

imagine jumping in them!

[bleedingheart]

73. I don't think so...but I just answered the question about dogs being put down

they are...when they aren't wanted.

Pregnancies are ended when the pregnancy is unwanted...

the OP still doesn't answer my questions ...

I think this is just a stupid argument against abortion...but then that's me...

[originalpckelly]

77. I know, I was wrong. Fetuses are dogs...

well except for that whole DNA thing.

[originalpckelly]

67. So it's a dog.

Come here little fetus, let's play catch.

[Scout]

47. no ... slaves are not inside someone else's uterus. n/t

[Clark2008]

134. No, but if the fundies get their way, women would be slaves to the fetus.

[originalpckelly]

148. Aren't parents slaves to their children?

Aren't we all slaves to the children of other people?

Don't parents or the state have to legally take care of a baby once it has been born?

[Scout]

158. No, parent does not equal slave. You really need to find a new word to fixate on. n/t

[Clark2008]

197. No - I WANT to work to provide for my child.

No one's forcing me to do it.

[me b zola]

210. No, but the host can be a slave to the parasite

How many times have you been pregnant?

[Warpy]

46. Women have a right to protect themselves against threats

to their life, health, social standing and financial stability. Since forced childbirth threatens all of those, yes, the woman has the right to defend herself against unwanted pregnancy.

Period.

[originalpckelly]

53. So the host owns the parasite?

[Warpy]

149. You think only in terms of ownership

The woman owns her own body and has the right to self defense.

[originalpckelly]

164. Oh I get it, so every fetus is a killer and wants its mother dead.

Interesting.

[Warpy]

173. since you obviously have not read my posts

this conversation is over.

[StarryNite]

271. Weird

Just a few weeks ago I happened to be in a place that had a televangelist on who was saying that babies are filled with hate and would kill their parents if they had the ability to do so. That guy was such a freak.

[piedmont]

265. No. More like mutualistic symbionts.

They enable the host to accomplish the fundamental goal of every living organism: to increase the global population of the genes that you carry.

[terisan]

19. Are women public property owned by the state ? nt

[originalpckelly]

20. Does that mean the private property of a fetus is really public property?

I bet playing soccer on a field of dead fetuses is pretty fucking difficult.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Can your Sperm open a bank account? nt

[originalpckelly]

35. Can a 1 day old baby open a bank account?

[Colobo]

38. Good one. Can a 5 year old open one?

[originalpckelly]

39. I don't know, but I think I've seen some with cell phones.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. I think you should answer the question. Are your sperm private property, or not?

Maybe you can give me the answer to that when you come up with an answer on IVF clinics and the birth control pill.

[originalpckelly]

75. No, no, they're like the emirates of the UAE.

[Cobalt Violet]

62. Yeah, at a sperm bank.

:patriot:

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Ba-Dum-Bump!

Very nice.

[terisan]

26. What an unusual statement. Is that a fantasy of yours? nt

[TahitiNut]

21. Other: They're residents of a sovereign territory of the woman.

Sovereign.

[originalpckelly]

23. When does the resident declare its independence?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

30. it's independent when it is separate which can happen however the host decides

and whenever

[originalpckelly]

34. Isn't that like declaring war on another country?

That's against international law.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

45. no it's like deporting someone who comes into your country

when you decide you don't want them there

[originalpckelly]

48. But isn't it private property?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

57. no I think it's a person but doesn't have the right to live in another person

nt

[originalpckelly]

63. Doesn't society have a responsibility to a person to keep a person alive...

if that person is capable of living a full life at a later time?

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Does society have a responsibility to ensure that EVERY POTENTIAL LIFE becomes an actual one?

Better save the preconceived babies:

http://www.geocities.com/preconceivedbabies/

[originalpckelly]

78. I think we need to expand the right to choose...

9 months is not enough. I say a 30 day return guarantee.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

83. abortion is about not having the right to live in another person, not a right to kill

The right of a person not to be forced to have someone living in their own body even if it means the other person dies if you remove them is different from the right to kill them once they are separated. Understand the difference?

[originalpckelly]

86. Does the "human" get an eviction notice?

[Scout]

89. if it could read one, then yes. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

91. So, you honestly believe that there is a "right to choose" for all 9 months of pregnancy?

Where'd you get that particular line of bullshit? That may be what Rush Limbaugh says, but it's not what Roe v. Wade says.

[originalpckelly]

97. No, no, I'm talking the whole shebang. From "birth" (eviction) onward 30 days...

I mean what company doesn't let you return something if you don't like it within thirty days of receiving the product. I think this is terrible customer service.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

102. Why 30 days after birth? The issue of occupying the other person's body no longer exists

so why would the other person have a right to kill it. Have you even thought about this issue beyond latching on to some "private property" spiel

[Warren DeMontague]

110. But your post was based on a blatant falsehood. There is no "Right to choose"

that can be expanded beyond 9 months- do you really believe women are running around pregnant for 8 months and getting abortions at the last minute on a fucking whim? And if so, I'd like to know where, precisely, you get that bull.

[originalpckelly]

111. No, no, it's customer service. I want a 30 day money back guarantee.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

117. You have a right to remove a fetus from YOUR body, not to kill it once removed.

It's not that hard to understand

[originalpckelly]

121. So you can kill when it's attached to your body?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

135. Yes if that is the only way to remove it. If there is a SAFER way to remove than killing it and

it can remain alive, then I would have no problem with a government requiring a person to do that (have the fetus removed and incubated)

[originalpckelly]

152. There may be a safer way, but 1.5+ million people who don't have a right to live on private property

die every year after being evicted.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

169. The solution isn't deciding government can force other people to put them in their bodies

is it

[originalpckelly]

171. Why the hell can't I evict a baby without any regard to its wellbeing?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

175. duh you CAN. You can call up social services and they will come and get it

with no risk to your or undue intrusion into your body. It's reasonable for a government to levy a penalty for you failing to arrange for the kid to be picked up by social service for its well being. Government forcing you to let it live in your body for 9 months isnt.

[originalpckelly]

178. But why? Why does it matter? If someone can just up and evict a fetus without...

any concern for what might happen to it, why not do the same for a baby?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

181. I already said that if a fetus could be removed with minimal intrusion into

the person housing it (I mean by a safer process than abortion) and incubate it outside of the person, then it would be fair for the government to require that process. Similar to the fact that it would be fair for the government to require a phone call to social services to evict a baby

Are you not getting that there is such thing as different levels of intrusion by the government? There are laws that require drivers to pull over and render help at an accident. There are no laws that require the driver donate a kidney or blood to the injured person. Get it?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

172. Should the government force you (if you're female) or your mother or sister to implant an embryo

or fetus that was removed by a mother? If you say no, why not if the government has the right to save lives by forcing other citizens to house them in their body

[Warren DeMontague]

107. That's funny. Because I think that if we're going to call fertilized eggs "babies" from the moment

of conception onward, grant them rights under the 14th amendment as the "pro life" movement wants to do, then we need to be consistent and do the same for unfertilized eggs and sperm.

Which will make every woman who doesn't get pregnant every time she ovulates a mass murderer, and every man a genocidal maniac every time he ejaculates-- but, you know, the principle is what is important!

[originalpckelly]

113. What don't you get about one having the DNA of the parents...

and the other having unique DNA different from that of the parents?

[Warren DeMontague]

143. What don't you get about the exact same DNA being present in the sperm and egg

prior to them joining, the exact same potential?

And if it's all about DNA, then I guess the folks who work in the IVF clinics ARE mass murderers.

[originalpckelly]

157. What do you not understand about human biology, once fertilization occurs...

it isn't the exact same DNA. It is different DNA. It is unique, it is distinct.

[Warren DeMontague]

168. 23 (sperm) Chromosomes + 23 (egg) Chromosomes = 46.

Whether there is recombination going on in there or not, no new material is being magically generated. They are the father's genes and the mother's genes. Only when random mutations induce change (otherwise known as the engine of human evolution, if you accept stuff like, you know, scientific fact) do you get brand "new" DNA coding.

And again, even taking all your arguments at face value, you are not being consistent- if fertilized eggs are "people" with "rights" that must be protected above all other considerations, then IVF clinics are mass murderers, IUDs are concealed murder weapons, and the pill needs be outlawed.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

72. Not to the point of forcing someone to donate blood to another person OR

donate your insides and other bodily functions to someone living inside you. It might be a valid moral expectation but a government has no right to force you to do it.

[TahitiNut]

52. When he or she emigrates.

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Cool. I guess you're ready to give me an answer now.

Since you, yourself have "reignited the debate"

Maybe NOW you can finally answer my questions about IVF Clinics, and the Birth Control Pill:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=735696&mesg_id=738912

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=735696&mesg_id=739055

[originalpckelly]

28. I don't know.

Is a fetus private property owned by its carrier?

[Warren DeMontague]

60. I would go with the previous poster who said it depends on the gestational age.

I think a fertilized egg 1 second after conception has far more in common with the unfertilized egg and sperm that combined to make it than it does with a baby. (Are your sperm private property?)

So yes, a fertilized egg is the property of its carrier. (Are the fertilized eggs in IVF clinics property, or do they themselves have rights?) I believe that there is a gradiation of existence between fertilized egg, embryo, zygote, fetus and baby, and as such I think the law (and reality) should and DOES reflect that fact. Women who are 8 months pregnant can NOT, for instance, run out and get an abortion on a whim, no matter what Rush Limbaugh may say on the matter.

But during the first trimester in particular, which is when the vast majority of all abortions take place, I think the rights of the woman in whose body the pregnancy takes place far exceed the "rights" of the potential baby inside her.

[phylny]

297. Evasion noted n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. A body is private property so a fetus has no right to dwell in someone else's body

unless the owner of the body allows it. That includes removing the fetus at any stage. That's how I see the issue and how almost all men would see it and why the question of abortion wouldn't even come up if it was our body.

[Colobo]

31. I wouldn't assume that men would react some way if we could get pregnant

because we simply can't, and for instance, there is no way to know if our subjectivity would change drastically if we could, and with our subjectivity our decisions...

[Proud2BAmurkin]

40. we might subjectively decide to have it but the right to remove it wouldn't be debated

.

[BlooInBloo]

36. One doesn't have to accept that characterization to be pro-choice.

[originalpckelly]

37. Excuse me, but if it isn't private property, what is it?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

41. call it a "person" but the person still has no right to live in the other person

if it could be removed and incubated it might have a right for that to happen if it did not harm the host but the host always has the right to remove it from their body which is private property no matter what the fate of the visitor

[originalpckelly]

44. Then a fetus is a slave. It can be commanded to do what its carrier wants...

without any interest in its well being. It's private property.

[Scout]

50. "fetus, I command you, begone!" n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

51. the fetus has no standing to live inside another person BUT

if it could be safely removed and housed outside of the body then the mother wouldn't have the right to have it killed because the right of abortion is the right for a person not to be forced to have someone else occupying their body against their will

[Kdog]

Disagree entirely

When you say "someone else", you are acknowledging that the fetus is a human being. Given that, i think it's extremely callous of you to consider one human's life as being somehow subordinate or of less value than that of another, especially given that in the mother-father-baby relationship, the baby is the only one of the three that is actually innocent in the circumstances it finds itself in (rapes are the only exception to that). You speak of her being forced to be pregnant as if every act of sex is an act of rape against the woman and that the act of sex entails no responsibilities on the part of men and women from the risks and consequences involved.

To disregard the life of the baby in all cases simply for the crime of requiring a woman's body to develop in...frankly, i think you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

92. I don't care if you think it's callous of me to say that governments shouldn't force people

to house other people in their bodies. If you think that's a moral position for the government to force one person to do that with their body you're a fascist. In addition to being a freeper.

I also said you're free to think not donating your kidney to your kid to save its life is immoral. That's different from saying it should be forced by a government.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

141. Your Freeptard argument doesn't convince me that government should force

people to house other people in their body or donate their kidneys to other people, even if it's their own offspring.

On edit: As an aside it is my understanding all pregnancies are life threatening potentially so that would make it even worse for a government to get involved.

Question the morality of a choice to kill a fetus all you want but the role of government isn't open to question by anyone but a fascist. You must not be much of a man if you think the government can force you to donate organs etc.

[Kdog]

162. The role of government?

This is an issue that will be decided on by the people, as it always has been, and hopefully that government will reflect whatever decision we make on this.

I find it interesting that you are the arbiter of what the role of government should be, and anyone who disagrees with that definition and seeks to change it is a "fascist". Is this more of the compassion and tolerance i've been hit over the head with since beginning this discussion?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

184. Government forcing one citizen to house another one in their body = fascism

worse than facism if you think about it.

Also yes I consider myself the arbiter of the role of government in my life. I do not obey governments that overstep what I think their bounds should be. I will abide by laws I find reasonable but I won't let a government force me to, say, commit genocide against Jews or force a segment of the populatin to house other people in their body.

Would you?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

185. So who is the arbiter of what the role of government is for you? Not you?

Who?

[Madspirit]

163. two blocks

Two blocks down and turn right...Ann Coulter's forum. I think you will be quite happy there.

KEEP YOUR LAWS AND YOUR GOD OFF MY FUCKING BODY.
Lee

[Kdog]

174. Umm...

I haven't mentioned god, what legislation should be passed nor said anything of my political persuasion. I have addressed this issue as rationally as I can from a moral standpoint of what is right to do, not what will be done. I wish you would be a little more rational in your own defense other than offering the simplisitic and logically vapid line "it's my body". This is why I call some of you callous and selfish in this issue, and i think it's well-warranted.

[Madspirit]

177. Callous?!

It's not my body? My ass.

It is not selfish to claim what is mine...my body. I promise you I will never make you have an abortion. So...you can do the same for me. Not interfere in my own personal choices.
Lee

[Kdog]

188. The problem

Is that we are not just talking about you. We are talking about 2 lives here, and only 1 of them is yours. Just because you believe you have unassailable rights over the other life does not mean you should have them.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

194. You don't have unassailable rights over the other person but you have them for your own person

Including the right not to be forced to house another person in your body no matter what the consequences are for the other person.

[Kdog]

207. no one is saying the baby has more rights than the mother

what some, including myself, are saying is that in terms of human life, they are both equal. What is more important, the sanctity of the body or the sanctity of life? You are choosing the body over that of the baby's life, without consequences or exception, and again, i'll ask you: why do you choose in that way?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

212. The sanctity of the body and other rights is more important than life. That's why

People die in wars to save other people's rights, and that's why people accept that innocents will be killed in wars such as WWII, for the greater good of preserving certain rights.

The right of a citizen not to be forced by a government to house another citizen in their body is more important to me than the right to life, and that's not even getting into the argument that the citizen living in the body presents a risk to the body owner's life which is the case with child bearing.

That is the long and short of the reason I choose that way, I can't get around the govenrment intruding on the person's body to that extent any more than I can get around the idea of the government FORCING me to donate a kidney to my offspring even though I would do it. It's two different issues, whether someone shoudl do it morally and whether the government can force them.

If there was a way to separate the two bodies and incubate the fetus I would think that was reasonable area for the government to get involved in because I don't think it's about a right to kill a fetus.

[Kdog]

224. Thank you

I appreciate the depth to which you've responded. You've chosen the body over the life, and i've chosen the life over the body. I don't think there's any more that needs to be said about it, since we both understand one another now.

I would care to add just a few more thoughts though. It is not just the "citizen living in the body" which presents a risk to the mother. The mother's body also presents a risk to the baby, for should it fail, the baby is almost certainly doomed as well. I find it all the more tragic that women can choose whether to risk pregnancy or not, but the baby has no such choice. For myself, I believe the body, during times of pregnancy, does not belong solely to the mother, since 2 lives are sharing it and 2 lives are dependant on it for survival. Sometimes the mother's life is endangered, sometimes the baby's life is endangered. Sometimes both are. And that is the reason why there must be a distinction between when and why a woman can choose to abort. It is also how I rationalize the government placing laws regarding abortion, because of the presence of two lives sharing 1 body, not 1 life and 1 body being infested by a parasite.

We'll never agree i think, but I've been coming on DU for many years now, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss this.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

234. Thank you

Even though I eventually arrived at a pretty non negotiable position on the issue it was never been a no brainer to me and I ended up having two positions, one moral and one governmental and although those two can overlap in some issues, I ended up not being able to comprehend the implications of that kind of government intrusion.

I have a moral problem with it although I know my moral position doesn't carry as much weight as if I was someone who could be pregnant. Even if you don't even accept that the fetus is a "person" as a lot of people don't then there is still something in the potential there that makes abortion a bad thing in my view, whether you think of it as ending a life which I do, or ending a potential life.

I also support laws that require information to be given to women considering abortion including ultrasounds because I figure if that would change their mind, they will probably wish they did change their mind at some point in the future. Again probably overstepping my bounds but that's how I see that issue. I don't see it as that great of a government intrusion balanced against saving the life/potential life, and sparing that person the regret.

[SidDithers]

270. You choose the life over the body...

fine. I know who to call if I ever need a kidney. After all, my life is more important than your body. Right?

Sid

[Proud2BAmurkin]

310. delete

[Kdog]

193. By the way

You still have yet to offer a scientific or moral reason for claiming ownership over your baby and granting it the status of parasite or kitchen table.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

196. 1. All pregnancy pose a potential life risk 2. Government can't force a person to take that risk

Why can't the government force you to donate your kidney to your offspring if they need it to save their life? Because it's too great an intrusion and no government has the right to force it.

[Kdog]

215. I disagree

Soldiers are forced into situations that are life-threatening all the time. True, they volunteer for it, at least in the case of the U.S., but so do women when they choose to have sex. There are cases of rape, but i see no need to explain that distinction(though i already have voiced my opinion on it in an earlier post) when you offer no distinction yourself.

The key phrase here is: personal responsibility. Do you see any responsibilities inherent in the act of having sex? If not, why not?

[Kdog]

218. I would also add

The governmnet recognizes that there are responsibilities inherent in the act of having sex. The man included, for he must abide by child support laws. Why is the woman exempt in your mind from any responsibility whatsoever?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

225. The woman isn't exempt from child support laws when the man has custody

Putting aside the bias that there probably is toward the mother which is another issue, the laws are that both parents are responsible for child support depending on the income of them and how much custody they have of the kid.

I don't know what I think about this because I can see the unfairness of the man having to make a decision at the time of sex as potentially having to take responsibility of an offspring, but that is not as intrusive as someone living in his body for 9 months. The woman has 9 more months to decide but that's just biology.

I think it's more of a societal decision that both parents will be financially responsible for any kid resulting because the other alternative is that we as taxpayers will end up with the burden.

If there was a law that said a man could get a signed contract before sex saying the woman will pay for any offspring if she decides to have it I wouldn't argue with it. Don't know what other solution there is.

[Withywindle]

281. This is the reason why anti-choice people

should only be allowed to have sex with people of the same gender. No unwanted pregnancies there, no problem for anyone!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

221. Soldiers who are DRAFTED are forced to use their bodies to save another one's

and I think the draft is absolutely wrong and no government has a reasonable right to force a citizen to risk their lives for other citizens in a war they don't believe in.

When a soldier enlists they deliberately sign off on obeying orders with some exception. They should attempt to abide by their agreement but I think they should be able to opt OUT at any time also. It's their body and life.

I don't think the government can take the position that there are responsibilities inherent in having sex for a lot of reasons.

For one thing, there is no other person at the time that the sex-haver is consenting to let live in their body for 9 months. For another thing, let's say the person having sex is on birth control and gets pregnant. Or let's say I tell her I had a vasectomy and it's not true. In those cases the person only consented to sex, and not only didn't consent to being pregnant but took steps not to get pregnant.

I would say those cases and rape make it even more out of reasonable bounds for the government to get involved and force the woman to remain pregnant against her will.

But I think in even the most careless non sympathetic situations where she takes no precautions she's still not consenting to house another person in her body and to FORCE that is way out of the proper bounds of government. So far out that I don't even get how anyone could think otherwise and I think abortion is a gnarly (bad) thing for lack of a better word.

[Madspirit]

201. I don't have to

I don't have to justify anything to you. You have stock in coat hanger companies, don't you?

I've had an abortion...nanana
Lee

[Proud2BAmurkin]

203. lol

.

[Kdog]

209. *sigh*

People like you are very good at clinging to their beliefs, but when asked, they cannot articulate rationally why they believe what they do. They become hostile, overly-defensive, and increasingly shrill. Your reasoning doesn't hold because you refuse to voice any reasoning whatsoever. To keep people like you out of power, i think i'd even vote a repub into office.

[Madspirit]

216. Quit acting like We OWE you something.

I do not owe you any explanation. None. Not any. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg said when upholding Roe vs. Wade, women are not chattel. The state cannot compel them to be containers for babies. We are not property. I LOVE Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Stop acting like we owe YOU some explanation. We owe you nothing.
Lee

[Kdog]

219. We? I was asking you

if i wanted to ask someone else, i would have. It's up to you whether or not to respond, and how you respond, but don't get angry at me for judging you based on that response. If you don't like the judgment, ignore it. You seem good at ignoring thing you dont' like anyway.

[Madspirit]

223. Like You Ignored

Kind of like you ignored what Ruth Bader Ginsberg said.

How exactly are you going to stop US from having abortions since rich women will fly somewhere and poor women...I think coathangers are still around. You will NEVER stop abortions. Women are not chattel, as Ginsberg said.

I see a TS in your future. You've made a great first impression. Is this why you joined? So you could attack Democrats for our OFFICIAL Democratic Party stance on abortion? Is it?
Lee

[originalpckelly]

226. Our party has made very serious mistakes in its official platform before.

At one time slavery, or rather private property rights, were a part of our platform. We also were for keeping the domestic institutions of the South.

I intend to never let our party do something so wrong ever again.

[Madspirit]

228. Fantasy World

How exactly are you going to stop us from having them since we can fly somewhere it's legal or use a coathanger. Funny Right Wingers...thinking because they don't like that something exists will make it not exist...ludicrous actually.
...and not a thing like slavery. I WILL have an abortion if I want to. YOU cannot stop me and neither can the law. So, looks moot to me.
Lee

[Madspirit]

230. Now hiding idiot thread...n/t

[Kdog]

229. Now you are repeating yourself

I am not going to stop anything. What i will do is vote alongside the rest of my countrymen, and WE will decide this issue (hopefully once and for all). We might not stop abortions, just like no amount of laws will stop crime, but that is not to say that we should just make crime legal since it will happen anyway.

There are many different standpoints on abortion. Many DU'ers will tell you there are many stances on being Pro-Choice just as there are when it comes to Pro-life. And no, DU does not as a whole agree with you. Not as if it would matter if it did. I do not conform myself to others. Why on earth anyone would start talking on any forum simply for the sake of aggreeing with the people on it is beyond me.

[Madspirit]

236. Many Polls Here

ALL the abortion and choice polls done here actually show that the vast majority of DUers do agree with me. Go look through the archives.

If I want an abortion, I will get one. Period. No law, not you, no one...will stop me. My body does not belong to the state, god, my lover. It is mine and so is anything in it.
Regardless of how you feel, abortion is not going away. You are only going to force women into using coat hangers or back alley butchers. I'm actually old enough to remember how horrid that was. Are you?
This is my last post. You will be a TS soon. Shall I say "bye" now?
Lee

[originalpckelly]

247. With material only in your body, you can clone yourself.

Is that something that should be allowed as well based upon privacy?

[Madspirit]

269. I have no problem with cloning.

Why would you think I would have a problem with cloning?
Lee

[originalpckelly]

272. Could a woman clone herself and enslave the clone?

[Madspirit]

276. Slavery is not legal.

I've read all your posts. Are you on some kind of acid or something?
Lee

[Madspirit]

278. I'm serious

Were you in the sun too long? All your posts are inane, incredibly repetitious and basically silly. It's odd.
Lee

[originalpckelly]

285. You know that can be said of your posts, right?

[Madspirit]

288. I may

I may repeat myself. What else can a person do when talking to bricks. My posts, however, do make sense, are not inane. I don't just throw out words like..."DNA"...."kidneys and livers"..."clones"... Half your posts sound like you are losing it entirely.
Lee

[Proud2BAmurkin]

192. It's not my body. I'll never be pregnant

But I can still understand that no government should force one person to house another one in their body and a person has the absolute right not to be forced to house the othre person. It's not callous to recognize that it's a rather neutral position.

You might think it is callous for someone to decide not to house that other person but that's a moral question that depends on your religion, what you think constitutes a "person", whether your religion allows abortion, etc.

[Kdog]

205. You see, that's my question

why don't you think an unborn baby at any stage of pregancy constitutes a "person"? For you, the ultimate distinction in qualifying a human to be a human is whether or not we were born, and i've yet to see a moral or scientific argument for that viewpoint.

[Madspirit]

211. You act like

You act like we owe YOU something. We owe you NOTHING...no explanation. None. We have a right to our position and there really isn't much you can do about it now is there?

Funny right wingers....thinking because they don't want something to exist makes it true.

...and I do think it is telling, that you JUST joined and jump right into THIS conversation.

Women will have abortions, whether you like it or whether you don't. Period. If it is made illegal rich women will fly elsewhere. Poor women will use coat hangers or back alley butchers but you will NOT stop it.
Lee

[Proud2BAmurkin]

246. No I said upthread that my position is what it is even when the fetus is recognized as "person"

But I meant that there are other religious points of view that say it's not a person until "first breath" etc so even if people accept a set of scientific criteria determing what "life" is (which has varied and any scientific definition only means a particular group of scientists agreed on particular criteria), you still have people disagreeing that any fetal "life" is a "person."

Then you have Catholics who believe the unjoined egg and sperm were set in motion by god and that the human potential already exists before conception, which is why they think every sex act needs to be open to conception and birht control is wrong and immoral. God's will to create a human begins at sex, not conception, so birth control is no different than murder.

So why would you think it's OK for the government to accept and put into law one definition of morality (deciding a joined egg and sperm should be protected legally) as opposed to accepting another (that birth control should be illegal because it interrupts the process of a particular unique egg and sperm from joining therefore prevents a particular person from life)? Why is it OK to reject the (Jewish) belief that protected personhood starts at "first breath"? There is no consensus and "splitting the difference" between religious and moral and totally secular beliefs is what Roe Vs Wade did with the trimester thing which I think is stupid although I support it because it's better than a ban.

[Scout]

95. you should be ashamed

"extremely callous of you to consider one human's life as being somehow subordinate or of less value than that of another"

kind of like you're trying to do to the pregnant woman, eh? treat her life as being subordinate or of less value than that of a fetus?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

98. You notice that's a 1 post Freeper.

nt

[Scout]

106. it's their first post, that does not make them a freeper,

and it's against the rules to call them one.

[Madspirit]

167. It's their position

It is their position...that the state or god or whatever, owns MY body...that makes them a Freeper and it is against the rules to call them that but I see the accusation about 400 times a day here.
Lee

[originalpckelly]

99. So every single pregnancy ends in the death of the mother?

I was totally unaware of this statistic.

[Scout]

104. you seem to be totally unaware of quite a lot of things.... n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

105. Huh? Not every kidney donation ends the life of the doner. What are you talking about?

Donating a kidney or blood doesn't threaten a life most of the time but the government cannot FORCE you to do it. Same with a pregnancy

[originalpckelly]

108. If you've donated a kidney, it's inside the other person...

and you want it back, what happens?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

114. Like a fetus, once it's separated from your body you don't have the right to it

but as long as it's in yours you do. Also you have consented to give it to another person. A pregnant person consented to sex but not to another person to let it live in them, for there WAS no other person at the time of sex.

[originalpckelly]

120. So if I remove the kidney, but don't give it to another person...

I can still do what I want with it?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

130. If you consented to donate it to another person awaiting a transplant you can't change your mind

once it's removed, no.

[Kdog]

142. How fallacious of you

Apparently, the word "equality" has no meaning to you.

[Scout]

145. A pregnant woman has human rights...

the fetus she is carrying has none.

Apparently the word "woman" has no meaning to you. Perhaps you're thinking of "vessel for man's seed" or some such bullshit.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

150. I'd say the fetus would have rights if it could be separated and if the separation

was safer than an abortion. I don't see it as a right to kill a fetus but the right not to be forced by the government to house it in your body

[BlooInBloo]

43. I have no idea. All I said is that it's possible to reject that characterization, and still be...

... completely pro-choice.

That doesn't require that I have the answer to every interesting question you might think up.

[bemildred]

56. Absolutely.

A fetus is definitely a human being, and a woman definitely doesn't have to carry it to term if she doesn't want to. Parenthood is not obligatory until after viable birth.

[originalpckelly]

58. So 1 day before viability a fetus can be killed and 1 day after...

it is not killable?

[bemildred]

64. Something like that. It would depend on the law.

The point is simply that being a human being doesn't give you a legal right to life. It is something you aquire along the way, and can lose, as in capital punishment. But it is silly to say a fetus is not human.

[originalpckelly]

79. It is private property and human. You know like those slaves.

[bemildred]

82. No, property is something defined by law too. Humans are not property. nt

[Proud2BAmurkin]

85. I notice you're unable to address my argument: a human with no right to live in another human

and that the government has no right to force you to let another person be a parasite in your body.

[originalpckelly]

90. Didn't we just decide parasites are private property of their hosts?

[Bluebear]

94. OK, OK, you are anti-choice, do you think you're changing minds here with this debate?

:hi:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

96. I said it is both a human and a parasite. I did not say "private property" because

the issue of property doesn't even matter once you accept that the government has no right to force a parent to donate a kidney to save their kid's life OR donate their body as a host of a fetus/parasite.

[Scout]

87. you need to find another word to fixate upon...

SLAVES were not inside the uterus of another person.

SLAVERY is not the same thing as abortion. A fetus is not the same as a slave.

[originalpckelly]

93. No, it's worse.

Few slave owners wanted to kill their slaves and destroy their private property.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

100. Address the fact that it's a person AND has no right to live inside another person

You haven't addressed it yet. A government cannot force a person to donate their kidney to save their offspring and the abortion issue is the same thing.

[Scout]

101. well if those slaves were inside the uteruses (uteri?) of the slave owners

I bet they'd be singing a different tune! :rofl:

[phylny]

298. How many babies have you adopted?

And are you giving financial support to women who want to keep their babies, but don't have the financial means to do so?

Just asking.

[Bluebear]

55. Well, this is helpful to the debate, nt

[BlooInBloo]

69. I sooooo don't understand why the OP is so keen on kicking so many pro-choicers to the curb - lol!

[Bluebear]

80. How can you even discuss the issue with it framed in terms of "property"? nt

[BlooInBloo]

151. I wish I knew. (shrug) But I don't.

[Colobo]

74. This debate won't lead anywhere.

[mnhtnbb]

76. Definition of fetus in humans, is the child in utero from the 8th week

to birth. Prior to that time it is called an embryo. The definition of property applies to goods, lands, material things. It doesn't include human beings.

I object to the use of 'carrier' as a synonym for woman. So far, we haven't figured out how to create an artificial womb which might be termed a 'carrier'.

If you look at the definitions, the answer to the question is clearly 'no'.


That doesn't mean that the responsibility for decision-making regarding pregnancy
should rest with anyone other than the pregnant woman.

[originalpckelly]

81. Of course, I really meant to talk about the whole micehood debate...

about whether or not fetal mice are really mice or not.

[terisan]

116. Time to talk about Sperm Distributor Responsibility. Cost of raising typical child to adulthood

estimated at $190,000. Thanks to DNA testing we can now track Sperm Distribution. Sperm distribution resulting in fertilization of egg should require posting of minimal $190.000 bond money made available to mother for child-raising + significant monetary award directly to mother for services. Sperm distributors unable or unwilling to pay should be imprisoned at authorized state work camps until they have paid their debt.

This should protect the interest of the state and is also likely to dramatically reduce the abortion rate.

Time to introduce the Sperm Distributor Responsibility Act.

[ismnotwasm]

88. Is it's carrier private property owned by the fetus?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[originalpckelly]

109. How can private property own its owner?

I knew my clock owned me!

[ismnotwasm]

204. You answered your own question n/t

[SidDithers]

103. No, it is the womans body tissue...

until it is able to live on its own.

Sid

[uppityperson]

112. How will this help the debate? Could you frame it a bit more insultingly either?

"carrier", right.

[originalpckelly]

115. Excuse me, I meant to say host and parasite.

[uppityperson]

119. I was wrong. Again. sorry, really.

[Scout]

122. I think you are correct. Have you alerted on the post? n/t

[uppityperson]

129. I was wrong, apologies.

[originalpckelly]

124. Excuse me, but that's not me.

I think you have the wrong poster.

[originalpckelly]

127. Could you pay attention next time you accuse someone of that?

[uppityperson]

133. YEs I WAS WRONG, abject apologies. Time to go delete and eat crow.

sorry, truly. I thought we were ok but misread and sorry.

[originalpckelly]

I sincerely hope you didn't alet on me without paying attention.

[uppityperson]

250. No, I did on the other one I mistook for you in other thread.

I am so sorry, I cannot believe I did that.

[uppityperson]

138. I was wrong, apologies, really, truly, i was wrong, wrong poster.

Not the right person, original is ok. sorry

[Bluebear]

126. Same church, different pew, UP

[originalpckelly]

131. Interesting, I didn't notice any smell in here.

Is that decomposing private property?

[Bluebear]

132. You sound more & more like some nut who is going to shoot some doctor.

No offense.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

123. You need to get off the silly semantics and answer the basic question

Does the government have the right to force a person to donate their kidney to save the life of their offspring? Does the government have the right to force a person to let another person utilize their body as a parasite for 9 months? Or are these rights up to the host/owner of the kidney no matter what you might think of the moral decision not to offer parts of your body to your offspring?

Answer the question about the government's role and explain why a government should force you to donate a kidney to your kid.

[Kdog]

183. Your argument does not hold

No one is saying that a woman's life is subservient to that of the baby, and forcing her to die to save the baby is a good idea. Your question about the government forcing people to save the lives of others therefore is beside the point.

To answer your question about the role of government--if the government recognizes equality in rights between the mother and her child, then yes, it is morally permissible for it to take steps to protect the baby's life just as it would protect the mother. This is why many people (many DU'ers included) disagree with idea that the woman be allowed unassailable rights over that of the baby, and recognize that there has to be some distinction between when and why the woman can abort the fetus.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

198. You can recognize equality in rights and the government STILL has no right to force

one citizen to house another one in their body. Do you think the government has a right to force one citizen to donate a kidney to their offspring against their will to save the offspring life? There is no such requirement because it is beyond the bounds of government's proper role.

I don't think it is a right to KILL the fetus, but a right not to house it in one's body. If there was a way (safer than abortion) to incubate it outside of the body the government would be within its right to require the safe removal of the fetus and incubation of it, and deny the mother the right to "kill" it.

But the right of one citizen not to be forced to house another in their body is absolute.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

200. Yes or no, should the gov require you to donate your kidney to your kid to save its life

Keep in mind the government recognizes the "equality" of you and your kid

[uppityperson]

260. Host and parasite works. I remember thinking this when I was pregnant.

How odd it was to be a host with a parasite inside me.

[Bluebear]

118. Women = baby vessels

:eyes:

[uppityperson]

125. The Handmaidens Tale...and crap I totally blew it, I was wrong

wrong poster, very wrong. wrong wrong wrong. shit. crap. crow, yum. sorry. laugh at me. sorry.

[Bluebear]

128. ...

I understand the error.

[originalpckelly]

140. S.S. Carrymechildren?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

136. People are not property or parasites. Embryos? Sure. Fetuses? No.

This thread really effected me tonight because of the cavalier way that people here have talked about fetuses before they become "people".
When does that happen? Will we ever agree? Personally, I think that unless someone has lost a baby, they can never know what it feels like.
In 2000, my sister was killed in a car accident. A few of you know this. She was 36 weeks pregnant at the time. When she was in the middle of her second trimester, the baby started to move. The fetus became the baby, and the baby became a HE. They decided to name him Thomas James. When they were killed, I felt like I had lost two individual people. My sister and my nephew. He and I were going to be best friends. He already responded to my voice. Would I have felt that way before he started moving? Probably not. After he started moving, he became real, and I don't know if the pain would have been nearly as intense as it was, as it IS.
I think referring to fetuses as parasites is a little revolting, and it sickens me that some people here have decided that that is OK. Embryo? Sure. Fetus? No. I think, personally, that when a baby starts moving inside it's mother, it's a person. My nephew had a personality from the first time he moved. When he responded to my voice, he was this little person I dreamed about laying in the grass looking at the stars with and teaching to swim. I can't have that.
I don't know if we'll ever agree on if a fetus is property or not. Abortion is not a black or white issue. It's got more shades of gray than there are colors out there. And we're never going to agree on when a fetus becomes a baby. And I don't know if that's ok or not. I do know that I am still sad all these years later that I lost my sister's male fetus. And I will never be the same.
Duckie

[originalpckelly]

146. I posted what made me think twice about this issue, and I was asked if it...

was some type of sales pitch. I was being truthful and I was just trying to explain why my position on this issue had changed, and that's the sort of cold and cruel response I got.

I've tried to have very serious debates about this, but every time I say anything I got picked on. It's not the end of the world, and I'm still always going to be a Democrat, but I know that we can be some mean suckers when we don't agree with someone.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

179. Interesting my opinion changed from yours to mine when I recognized it was an issue of

the role of government, with the moral issue being a separate one. I decided there is no way I would let any government intrude on my person to the extent they would with a pregnant women if they forced them to house another citizen in their body

[Bluebear]

137. BOTTOM LINE: Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose.

Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right. Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing.

Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000

[renie408]

182. I guess I will become a Republican then. And keep that kind of talk up and a whole lot of

other people will go with me. I think there should be limits on abortion. I think it is murder to terminate the life of a child that could live viably outside the womb when there are no mitigating circumstances. I would be willing to bet really GOOD money that the majority of people out there agree with me. Maybe not in here, but out 'there'...Oh, yeah, out there I bet they do. You people need to get your head out of your ass on this and quit framing this discussion in such 'either your with us or your agin us' terms.

[Bluebear]

186. "You people need to get your head out of your ass on this"

Wow, you sure convinced me!

As to the majority of people agreeing with you, maybe in South Carolina, I have no idea. Certainly not in New England.

[renie408]

187. I have no interest in convincing you. You obviously have the lines drawn for all of us.

You are the hard core REAL Democrat, after all.

And you know what? To hell with you. Do you want to REALLY know what the BOTTOM LINE is? You have no idea what you are talking about. What about all of the African Americans that count themselves as Democrats that also don't believe in unlimited abortion? Are you willing to give back all those votes? Or the votes of the people who have some doubts about this? You just let me know...if my Democrat vote isn't good enough for you, I can stay home next time around. Since the BOTTOM LINE is that if I don't agree that a woman can terminate the life of a viable baby eight months into a pregnancy I am not a Democrat any more.

BTW, my husband isn't a Democrat any more either. And neither are any of my friends that I discussed this exact same subject with earlier today. I think YOUR Democratic Party just lost about ten votes.

[Bluebear]

189. My party has a platform, sorry. You want to change it, work within the party to do so. nt

[renie408]

202. So...either you believe 100% in every aspect of the Democratic Party platform or

you are no longer a Democrat? Don't you think that sounds a lot more like something a FREEPER would say? Is that it? Are you the Democratic version of a Freeper?

Oh, well then...

[Bluebear]

213. Oh go have another beer ferchrissakes

>>Don't you think that sounds a lot more like something a FREEPER would say? Is that it? Are you the Democratic version of a Freeper?<<

:rofl: No, with your cries of "get your head out of your ass! Is that it?? IS THAT IT???" I think you sound a little more freeperish.

Look, you are the one who said you better become a Republican over this one issue. McCain seems to be your only choice though, Giuliani and Romney have pro-choice backgrounds.

[renie408]

231. You are the one laying down the law about who gets to be a Democrat and who doesn't.

I don't recall the 'is that it' part. I still think you have your head up your ass. But you seem comfortable that way, so I guess that's your right.

It is pretty stupid to get so upset over someone else's idea of what constitutes a Democrat and what doesn't. I guess I need to remember that what I think on the subject is more relevent to me than what you think. I don't think anybody who says "Either you believe XXX or you aren't a Democrat." belongs in the Democratic Party. But again, that is relevent only to me.

[Bluebear]

241. Madame, your argument is not with me, it is with the Democratic Party.

I merely posted the part of the party's platform that deals with choice. You are the one who has gone haywire over it. Again, if you want to change the party, please feel free to change it from within. You mentioned that maybe you would become a Republican because of this plank of the platform, did you not?

Honestly, write Dr. Dean and tell him we should include anti-choice as an option for the party, quit bellyaching to me.

[Bluebear]

PS don't waste your breath anymore

[renie408]

237. What the hell. I type really fast and have insomnia.

I have already wasted all this time and energy on this dog of an argument, I might as well stick it out.

[porphyrian]

144. No, it's a body part of the mother.

On edit, I'd like to add that a fetus is a potential baby, not a baby. I'm a potential billionaire, but I'm actually broke as shit. Calling a fetus a baby is like calling me a billionaire.

[originalpckelly]

147. Why does the body part have unique DNA?

Is that usual?

[porphyrian]

153. Mitochondria has a unique set of DNA, and we don't question whether or not it's part of the body.

Yeah, it's usual.

[BlooInBloo]

155. Dammit - I'm getting beat to the punch left & right. lol!

[porphyrian]

156. Sorry, I'll slow down.

;)

[BlooInBloo]

159. LOL! Can you imagine mom suing to get "her" property back from you? LOLOL!

[porphyrian]

160. Don't laugh. It could happen to a celebrity one day. - n/t

[BlooInBloo]

166. "I want HALF Eddie!" lololol!

[porphyrian]

170. Heh, heh, adds a whole new scary dimension to that routine. - n/t

[originalpckelly]

161. Actually, that is the same mitochondrial DNA as the rest of the body's mitochondria.

[porphyrian]

165. Yes, but not the same DNA as the rest of the individual's DNA.

I didn't say every mitochondria (is that the plural?) in a single body has a unique set of DNA.

[Madspirit]

180. You sound like some

You sound like some kind of old record that is stuck....
Lee

[BlooInBloo]

154. Everyone's mitochondria (jillions) has DNA, and it *always* differs from that of the person... fwiw

[enki23]

222. lots of people walking around who are chimeric

that means different tissues in their body have different sets of unique DNA. many don't even know it, but they are, given your definition, actually two different people. should the unique human whose DNA includes the brain of the body have the right to consent to surgery which may compromise the health and well-being of the other? is "uniqueness of DNA" what constitutes a fully enfranchised human being? if that's the case, do monozygous twins only count as one?

it seems "unique DNA," given the obvious answers to the above, is neither necessary, nor sufficient to constitute a human being.

[Madspirit]

190. Coat Hangers for Sale!!

For those against choice...shame on you. It only affects poor women. Rich women can just go somewhere else to have an abortion.

Teenagers will use coat hangers.

Sad and shameful to be anti-choice....and deadly. You guys are like Republicans. You think just because you don't like something, it will end. Not true.

You will NEVER control me or my body. As an Austinite, I'm less than 300 miles from Mexico. If I can't get one here, I will go there.

(Well, all this is theoretical at this point. I'm 53. I have had an abortion, just btw. Safe and legal, the way it's supposed to be.)
Lee

[Bluebear]

191. "Get your head out of your ass!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=746921&mesg_id=748211

[Madspirit]

199. Me Bluebear?

Huh?
Lee

[Madspirit]

208. I get it now Bluebear!!...n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

232. To be fair, though, the "you guys" who are anti-choice around here number about 2 or 3.

Most people here are pro-choice. A few more don't seem to be able to make the cognitive leap between being pro-choice about some choices consenting adults make about their own bodies (the ones they approve of) and other ones they don't happen to approve of... but that's a kettle of fish for another day.

[renie408]

235. You know the weird thing? I thought I WAS pro choice.

I just think there should be limits on late term abortions. If it regards the health of the mother, it should be her choice. But if the fetus is viable and continuing the pregnancy does not constitute a danger to the mother, I think there should be some kind of restriction.

And NO, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to do that. But, then again, I couldn't imagine Susan Smith killing her two kids and blaming it on a non-existent carjacker, either.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. But that's not really relevant to the political debate in this country.

The question isn't "should women be allowed to abort for the hell of it all through pregnancy", nobody is making that argument widely or in a legislative context, that's for sure. The question is, "should abortion as it exists today; where the overwhelming majority of abortions take place in the first trimester- remain legal? Should doctors and women be sent to jail?" and, as a corollary and not insignificant subset, "Should contraception remain legal, as most of the major pro-life organizations have criminalizing contraception as the next goal after abortion?"

The reality is that when late-term abortions do rarely happen, I think there's generally a reason for it- like I said elsewhere, women aren't running around pregnant for 8 months and aborting because they "look fat". That just doesn't take place. There is not a "need" for laws in that regard, and when you get the government involved you end up having all kinds of unintended consequences.

The thing about the Susan Smith analogy is, she was a deranged individual who was mentally ill. She couldn't, and didn't, go find a doctor to help her do it. The bottom line with all of this is, particularly as things stand now and so-called late term abortion is pretty much a right-wing red herring, I feel much better leaving the decision making process up to individual women and their doctors than putting that decision in the hands of legislators and televangelists.

[renie408]

251. No question.

I believe in a woman's right to choose, absolutely, up to a point when the baby can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb.

When I stated that...just like that...on another thread earlier. I was told that I was not pro-choice and that I was wrong. A woman has the right to choose whenever she wants and to interfere with that was...I dunno, bad. Then there was the post on this thread which stated that unless you believe in a woman's right to choose without limits of any kind, you are not a Democrat.

When this subject comes up, I cannot just say "I believe in choice. Period." Because I don't.

[Warren DeMontague]

255. People, of course, make all kinds of arguments.

If anyone starts seriously trying to make a legal case for abortion "on demand" through all 9 months of pregnancy, and doctors start showing a willingness to perform them (this idea that reproductive and abortion doctors are totally oblivious to any of the ethical questions around these issues is another product of the noise machine, IMHO) then I'll take it seriously as something to wrangle with. Personally, I'm pro-choice in that I think the situation since Roe should stand; and that situation means that women who want abortions early in pregnancy can choose them, and women who need them a little later on can find them up to a point... if and when they have a medical reason. I also have no problem with societal programs aimed at reducing the numbers of surgical abortions, programs like universal health and prescription coverage that includes contraception, a liveable minimum wage, reality-based sex ed in schools with, again, contraceptive availability.. increased federal funding for contraception research.. hell, make the pill available OTC.

Beyond that, I'm "pro-choice" in that I have socially libertarian views on the idea that consenting adults should be able to do what they damn well please with their own bodies in private on their own time, as long as they're not endangering or harming anyone else.. Which means I don't think the government has any business making things like pot smoking or consenting adult porn, to name a couple, illegal. I've been told I'm not "progressive" because of those views, from time to time. But if what I believe doesn't fit someone's idea of what a label means, then at most the label is going to go; not the belief.

[originalpckelly]

259. So you don't even recognize that any form of life is being harmed or endangered by abortion?

"Beyond that, I'm "pro-choice" in that I have socially libertarian views on the idea that consenting adults should be able to do what they damn well please with their own bodies in private on their own time, as long as they're not endangering or harming anyone else.."

Even if you don't consider the state of a person as they are inside the womb, at some point a person who is fully developed has been prevented from existing when they would have existed otherwise (of course taking into the exceptions to that including "natural" causes of death.)

That's the only reason I'm not pro-choice in this particular area, because someone is going to be harmed. If that wasn't true, I wouldn't give a flying fuck how many abortions anyone had.

Unfortunately, that is simply not true at this time. When people or parasites are aborted, they fucking die.

The only harm that might be on the level of that is fucking torture.

You may not recognize that a collection of cells can and does become a human being in a large number of pregnancies, but it fucking does. You and I were both a collection of cells at one time.

If our parents had decided to have abortions, we wouldn't be here right now. That's harm, that's endangering someone else.

That falls under your own definition of something that might rise to the level of government intervention.

[Warren DeMontague]

263. Yes, and you and I were also a sperm and egg, once.

Do you recognize that masturbation, wet dreams, and menstruation "harm life", too?

If our parents hadn't had sex when they did, and those sperm and egg hadn't met, we wouldn't be here, either.

I keep saying; I recognize that there is a continuum between single cell after conception and baby at 9 months. I think in the first trimester particularly, (when most abortions are performed) the rights of the woman in whom the pregnancy takes place take precedence over the rights of the potential person in the womb.

You say "No! It's a person"- but you yourself are incapable of accepting your own black and white decree on the matter. You can't figure out a coherent answer about the birth control pill (which supposedly can prevent implantation of fertilized eggs) IUDs (ditto) or IVF clinics, which we KNOW discard far more fertilized eggs than they can use. So which is it? Is it a person, or not? And why should women who want to make their OWN call on the matter accept YOUR gospel "it becomes a person with rights the second of conception" when you can't even be bothered to figure out or accept all the real-world implications of your OWN view on the matter?

[originalpckelly]

283. There is a difference in stopping a life that is already in the process of developing...

and preventing a life from developing in the first place. It is a concept you seem to be incapable of understanding.

Abortion takes the life of a person in development, not combining sperm and eggs prevents a life from developing. They are not the same thing for a number of reasons:
1. There is the biological difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg. The probability that a fertilized egg will become a fully grown human is much higher than that of an unfertilized egg, without human intervention there is almost practically no probability that an unfertilized egg will become a fully grown human. Nothing is impossible, but it is highly improbable.

2. The same may be said about a sperm. The probability that sperm will develop into a fully grown human being is vastly lower than a fertilized egg's probability of becoming a fully grown human being.


I'm interested in thinking, and I don't think in absolutes despite how you may attempt to characterize my logic, it is no where near black and white. I'm debating what is ethical, not what should become law. If the ethics of an abortion ban are sound, so too the logic and evidence supporting it, then it should be considered. I can say at this time I am not fully confident in my logic, because I don't believe in my own infallibility. The fact that I once held a different position on this matter have really played an important role in that commitment to understand how fallible I am. I am willing to admit I'm wrong, unfortunately you have presented yourself to be almost completely incapable of doing that.

[Warren DeMontague]

287. If an unfertilized egg is surrounded by sperm seconds before conception

the probability is well nigh identical that they will develop into a human as the probability is for a fertilized egg.

You want to launch into baseless statements about what I am willing to admit and what I am not, or how fallible I think I am or not.. That's not at issue here- the questions are very simple. If a Fertilized Egg is a "life" that needs protection, why does it need protection in the womb of a woman who doesn't want to stay pregnant but it doesn't in an IVF clinic? Why does it need protection from RU-486 or a first trimester abortion but it doesn't from an IUD or the birth control pill which might prevent implantation? And if the line isn't conception, where is the line?

You want to separate ethics from law, but this debate is ABOUT law. Personally, I wouldn't have an abortion- I can't. I'm a man. I'm also a parent; a parent who saw my kid on an ultrasound at 5 months. So I am neither oblivious to the arguments (believe me, I've heard them before) presented by "pro-lifers" nor am I incapable of critically examining my own views. Neither do I believe my wife would have an abortion if she became pregnant by accident, at this stage in the game.

But that's not what being pro-choice is. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion is a great thing, or that you yourself would even have one if it was YOU who was pregnant. Being pro-choice only means you don't want to LEGISLATE that call onto other people and other people's bodies. YOU are making the assertion that a fertilized egg deserves protection; but you seem eager to embrace the implications of that protection when it affects the choices of women who, as you put in another thread, "choose to have sex", after all.. but you don't seem to want to accept the same inevitable implications when they are applied to fertility clinics or the birth control pill.

So I'll spell it out for you: The HLA plank in the Republican Platform as it has stood for the past few decades, when combined with the stated positions of the major "pro-life" organizations in this country, WOULD make the pill illegal. WOULD make IVF clinic workers de facto serial killers. No ifs, ands, or buts. "Is abortion a good thing" is another debate- and I think people who answer NO, in addition to personally not choosing to abort their own pregnancies (if they're women) can do a number of things which might reduce surgical abortion rates, starting with supporting comprehensive contraceptive availability all the way to supporting a SPHC system and a liveable minimum wage...

But this debate is about whether it (and, frankly, contraception) should remain legal. That's IT.

[originalpckelly]

289. You're implying that having an abortion is somehow wrong, why?

Why would having an abortion be wrong, if there shouldn't be any regulation on it before a certain point, why the hell would it ever be something wrong?

You're taking two sides at once here. You're saying your pro-choice, but implying you don't favor abortion. If you support a woman's right to choose, you have to do so without thinking abortion is somehow wrong. Because if it is somehow wrong, then it opens up the dialog about whether or not it should be legal, which would be based upon how wrong it is.

[Warren DeMontague]

290. No, I'm saying it's a personal decision.

I'm saying that it's not for ME to say to a woman I've never met that it is "wrong" for her to end her pregnancy, not under the conditions we've had since Roe.

I think on some matters people need to be able to MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. I don't smoke pot or drink, but I sure as shit don't think they should be illegal. The reason I'm in my own head and not sitting on top of everyone else's shoulders is because people need to come to their own conclusions about certain things.

And this is one of them. I know, you want to suck back into the same vortex of "but if it's wrong, but.. but.. but.. but it's a person.. but..." So let me save us both a little time. I don't accept that a fertilized egg is a person. I accept that there is a continuum from fertilized egg TO person, and on the part of the continuum that takes place affected by Roe, where most abortions are in the first trimester, the choice NEEDS to be up to the woman as to how she feels about the pregnancy. Period. End of Fucking Story.

You're the one taking two sides at once, frankly, saying that a fertilized egg is a "life" when we're talking about first trimester abortions, but not when we're talking about IVF clinics.

[originalpckelly]

291. There's another difference between two parents just deciding not to conceive..

and a parent or two parents deciding to have an abortion: there is some physical remnant of abortion.

You can't kill someone who doesn't exist. But the truth of abortion is that something that may become a fully grown person does exist and is taken out of existence.

[Warren DeMontague]

293. And you're repeating yourself.

There's physical remnants of menstruation and ejaculation, too.

Beyond that, I'm not interested in continually answering the same arguments over and over, ones that have been made repeatedly several posts upthread.

I'll be here when you figure out a consistent answer on IVF clinics and the pill versus RU-486 versus abortion.

[originalpckelly]

264. I must say, that's the only reason I care.

I wouldn't even be arguing this right now if it weren't for that and the fact that I realized a person could have been prevented from living by abortion.

[renie408]

233. If you are terminating a late term pregnancy, you had better bring more than a coathanger. n/t

[Madspirit]

239. I have a cousin

I have a cousin who was born at six months...perfect little baby. I don't think anyone embraces last trimester abortions. We merely think the woman is the only one who has the right to decide.
Lee

[renie408]

244. I agree. No one would 'embrace' a late term abortion. Maybe

I am freaked out over nothing. But again, I would never think that a woman would kill her already born children. Being pregnant does not make you a mother. When does the fetus have rights? Maybe it is one of those things I will just have to let go and hope that the right thing gets done. But when does that really work? Who would think that so many people would do things, horrible things, that hurt others for purely selfish reasons? Why is it that everybody here rolls their eyes when someone mentions allowing any industry policing itself, but we are going to let pregnant women do it? Why do we just assume that they are going to make the 'right' decision? Or do we assume that since it is their body and they have the physical upper hand over the baby, ANY decision they make is the 'right' one?

Why is it perfectly OK to tell a woman that she must put her newborn in a carseat so that it will be safe, but not to tell her she can't abort the same baby a month prior to birth without a valid reason? It all comes down to what the person who wrote about the 'cutoffs' was saying. There are many places where different people draw the line as to when a baby has rights of its own. I draw mine when they could survive on their own. I have thought and thought about this and anything else just really feels wrong.

I am an atheist. I *thought* I was pro-choice. I believe that grown adults can make any decision they want. But I thoroughly believe that children, ALL CHILDREN, deserve to be protected.

[originalpckelly]

249. I believe you might take a look at this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=746921&mesg_id=748901

[renie408]

252. I am sorry...

Maybe its just because I am tired, but how is that pertinent to what I wrote? I don't get it.

[originalpckelly]

253. There are some people who do not seem to care when it happens.

I don't know why. It doesn't seem very reasonable.

[Warren DeMontague]

261. Maybe they don't care because the "pro-life" movement is constantly equating

this



with this



It's the "pro-life" movement that can't seem to distinguish between a single cell and a "baby", frankly. Maybe that's where these ideas come from.

[Warren DeMontague]

257. And is that what the debate in this country centers around? NO. There are "pro-lifers" who think

gays, blasphemers, and "fornicators" should be put to death by stoning. (Care to defend that point of view?)

But that's not what the debate is about- the debate is about the VAST MAJORITY of abortions that take place in the first trimester, and whether or not the people who perform them (and the women who have them) should go to prison.

[Madspirit]

275. Look

I would probably agree about last trimester abortions IF I trusted the government. I too think it's a baby at that point, not a fetus, since it can live outside the womb. ...and you don't get to kill babies simply because they are pesky. I just don't trust the government and I think they use ANY concession as a way to whittle Roe vs. Wade. ...and IF I am FORCED to choose between the lives of a FEW last trimester babies and the thousands of women who might die, if abortion was made completely illegal, I would have to choose FOR the women.
Lee

[Warren DeMontague]

279. I think the whole "last trimester abortions" thing is a red herring.

The debate isn't about last trimester abortions- it's about FIRST trimester abortions. The rarely-done procedures talked about in the so-called PBA bill are generally second trimester abortions, and even those I'm pretty sure are not done on a "whim" by callous women who couldn't be bothered during the first few months of morning sickness.... but rather when there's something gone wrong with a pregnancy they intended, and women find out via testing.

[Madspirit]

282. I Agree!

The Right Wing somehow has scared people into believing all us damned liberal abortion-loving women are out there killing thousands of 8 month fetuses. I actually think it's EXTREMELY rare.
Lee

[originalpckelly]

284. You are aware that almost all abortions are done because of a choice not a...

medical necessity or as a result of a rape pregnancy? I think that a lot of people don't know that, but most people who are aborted are aborted either because their parents cannot afford to take care of them or they simply don't want kids.

[Madspirit]

286. Yes...a choice....exactly...n/t

[tyedyeto]

214. ANY health decisions between any person and their doctor...

should NEVER be legislated or decided on by the Supreme Court.

[happyslug]

217. This has been debated for Millennia, and will be again.

The real question is NOT if a fetus is private property, but when does a Fetus become a human Being, with all the rights of the Human Being?

The traditional time when a Fetus became a Human in Western Thought was when the Fetus became "quick". i.e. When the Fetus could, in least in theory, survive outside the womb. Under Roe vs Wade the term Quickening was NOT used, but generally a Woman was quick with child whenever she entered her third trimester of pregnancy (Thus the fetus was "Viable" which was the term used in Roe Vs. Wade). Even under Roe vs Wade the states were permitted to impose whatever restrictions the state deemed necessary for such third trimester pregnancy (provided an exception was made for the health of the mother). Thus the Supreme Court ended up following the common law rule on abortion and making it Constitutional Law. Those Common law rules permitted woman to have a almost complete right to have an abortion prior to the third trimester (During a woman's Second trimester the state could impose more rules than during the first trimester, but it was still up to the woman to have an abortion or not). This had been the Common law rules since the Middle ages (and had been the Rule in The Catholic Church till 1869 when During Vatican I the present rule of the catholic Church was adopted).

Please note the Catholic Rule prior to 1869 was that Abortion prior to the third trimester was a venial sin, not Murder. Post 1869 Catholic Doctrine rules ANN abortion is Murder and thus a "Mortal Sin". The Catholic Church has always had a hierarchy of sin, with venial sins, being considered minor and NOT grounds to be barred from heaven or the Sacraments, while Mortal sins were a violation of the Ten Commandments and as such grounds for someone to go to hell (in the present dogma, the term "Sin" is used for the older term "Venial Sin", and the term Severe Sin is used for the older term "Mortal Sin".) People often confuse the Catholic use of the term "sin" with how right wing Fundamentalist used the term "Sin". In Catholic usage, "Sin" is just an "Error", nothing more. Catholic Doctrine hold "Mortal Sins" now "Severe Sins" as the only grounds for damnation (Though I have run across a lot of Catholics who do not understand this difference).

Surprising, most Christian denominations followed the pre-1869 Catholic Rule until the Medical Community started to expand into what had been for centuries the domain of Midwives. Various reasons for the switch from Midwives to Doctors during the 1800s have been forwarded, but the most likely one is that as the state forced the Medical Community to improve, the Doctors demanded and received the right to be the ONLY provider of Medical Services. People tend to forget that prior to the mid-1800s most Doctors did NOT go to ANY medical School, like Midwives and Lawyers (And most other professions) you learn while working for someone else who was in the profession. Now there had been medical schools since the late Middle Ages, but it was rare for these to be more than one year in length even as late as the US Civil War.

As to Midwives, the Medical Community viewed the Midwives as competitors, with many women preferring midwives to medical doctors (my own father, born in 1919 believed he was delivered by a Midwife not a Doctor). The medical profession during the 1800s (and increasingly during the late 1800s) demanded that giving birth was a Medical act and had to be performed by a Medical Doctor, so Midwives were slowly forced out of the business of giving birth (and providing other services, including information on contraceptives AND providing abortions).

One of the consequences of this movement was the replacement of the "Birthing Chair" by the table. Recent research have indicated that the birthing chair of the Midwives were easier on the woman, for it was design to drop out the baby into the arms of the Midwife. The mother had arms to hold onto, and sit to sit down with a hole for the baby to exit her womb and into the arms of the midwife. Doctors preferred tables for they had more control over the birth sequence, then if they used a birthing chair.

Now back to the Common law. When the women pirates Mary Reed and Anne Bonny were captured in 1720, both "Plead their Bellies" i.e. they were "quick" with child. This delayed their execution (Through Mary Read seems to have died in Prison, Anne Bonny released was arranged by her Father, a planter in South Carolina). To plead their belly, both Pirate had to be examined, but by a mid-wife to see if they were "quick" with child, not a medical Doctor.

Thus the law, till it was changed during the 1800s, was that a Fetus was a human being once it "Quicken" i.e. entered its third trimester of life. If the Fetus was NOT quicken, then its mother could be executed for the fetus was NOT a Separate Human Being.

Other Cultures have had different definition. Ancient Rome permitted not only abortion throughout the Woman's pregnancy, but even infanticide up to the child being one year of age.

Thus you have Four "Cutoff" periods when it comes to when a fetus becomes a Human Being. The First is conception. Once conceived it is a Human Being. One big problem with conception is that 10-50% of fetus are miscarried during the first eight weeks of the pregnancy. Are these fetus human? Most such fetus go right down the toilet without the woman even knowing she had been pregnant. If the fetus is a Human, she is thus a murder (Even the Catholic church rejects this argument, maintaining that such natural abortions being nature are NOT murder). What if the reason the woman aborts naturally is she just does so just by walking around? (Sophia Loren was suppose to have this problem, to keep herself pregnant she had to stay in bed, otherwise she would spontaneous abort the fetus). Is such a woman committing murder by just walking down the street? The answer is simply,, no, but also shows you the problems with using Conception as the cut off point.

The Second, is "Quickening" i.e. when the Fetus could, in Theory, survive outside the womb, this has been the most common rule in Western Culture.

Third, is Birth, permitting abortion until birth, but not afterward, Surprising this has been the least accepted cut off, for you have cases where child born weeks earlier than birth survived. If such a fetus could survive, why then permit killing an older fetus just because it is still in the womb? Thus Quickening has been a more popular cut off then birth.

Forth, infanticide, i.e. up to the time the child can talk and walk. This reflects the huge brain development that occurs after birth in Humans. At birth a Child is about the same proportion of head to body he or she will be at birth. From Birth to about 9 months you have Massive development of the brain, thus at about nine months the child is about 1/3 head and 2/3 body (The body develops at a steady pace, unlike the accelerated pace of the Brain). Do to this brain development, children age one and up can interact with adults, and thus almost always viewed as "People", but prior to that huge brain development many society (Ancient Rome for one) viewed such children as NOT being Human.

These are the four cutoffs used to determine when a fetus/child becomes a Human. I have to go with Quickening, for it lasted for centuries and appears to be the best cut off. Conception is a problem for most women do not know if they are pregnant till weeks later. Often the Woman does not find out till two weeks later when she miss her period, through sometime six weeks later when the ovary that issued the now eight week old fetus misses (Fetus are aged from the last period of a woman, thus, once impregnated, the woman is already two weeks pregnant, it is just how Doctors measure pregnancies). Thus it is possible for a woman to be eight weeks pregnant before she ever knows she is pregnant (and that assumes she is "regular"). That barely gives her one month before she enters her Second Trimester of pregnancy and the stricter rules permitted even under Roe vs Wade (Through the Rules for the Second Trimester is NOT the absolute bar the Third Trimester represent for during the third trimester a woman can be banned from having an abortion unless the lack of an abortion could lead to the mother's death or great bodily injury).

Thus the REAL issue is which of the above cutoff do you support.

For a synopsis on the history of Abortion see:
http://www.tab.to/law/abortion-law.html

[renie408]

240. Thanks for posting this.

I agree with the 'quickening' cutoff, also. I didn't realize that was what being 'quick with child' meant. I also believe in exceptions at the mother's discretion in cases of endangerment to her health from continuing the pregnancy.

[happyslug]

274. I used the definition of "Quickening" which is 28 weeks....

But others have used what they call the "First movement of life" of the fetus, anywhere from 18-22 weeks. I have run across both definitions, and for that reasons Doctors tend to use week of pregnancy and the term viability instead of quickening when it comes to pregnancy. Basically Quickening is when the fetus can be felt moving in the womb. At that point abortion was NOT permitted under the Common Law (Unless the health of the mother was in question) nor was the mother subject to execution (Least you also execute an innocent third party i.e. the Fetus).

For more on quickening see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening

[philosophie_en_rose]

238. Yes,

A fetus is attached to a woman's body. Women are not "carriers," by the way. They are sovereigns over their own body.

This isn't a property question, though. It's a question of choice. Who gets to choose what a woman does with her own body?

[flying_monkeys]

242. Not "property", but yes, the carrier gets to decide

its fate. Until it is born, it is entirely HER decision, at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months or 8. Her right to decide her reproductive matters doesn't cease because a fetus hits some arbitrary milestone, IMO. Until it is born and a legal person, the carrier makes the decisions.


(Don't buy into the game because less than something like 1% of all abortions take place later (and most states restrict access anyway). )

[Withywindle]

243. Look, I'll break it down for you as best I can.

This whole thread is giving me a headache.

It comes down to this. I'm a Southern girl, so maybe I can put it in language you can understand.

My UTERUS is private property. There is a "No Trespassing" sign.

If I want to invite a houseguest in, that's my business. I own property, I can do that. Many women have invited houseguests in joyously, and it's up to them when they feel that guest is really THERE, if you take my meaning.

If someone is creepin' around who I don't want there, I can also take out a shotgun like Daddy taught me and dispose of the problem.

Just as Southern men are very tetchy about their guns and the 2nd Amendment, we feminists are tetchy about Roe v. Wade and our own ability to defend ourselves against unwelcome squatters. Got it?

[renie408]

248. Squatter's get rights after a certain period of time. That is all I would

advocate. At some point in a pregnancy, they aren't squatter's any more. They are residents. And if you don't want them there, you need to evict them in a timely fashion. Like before they could reside independent of your...ok, my ability to maintain this analogy just ran out. I think there should be limits on late term abortions if the fetus is healthy and there is no danger to the mother. I think somebody a helluva sight smarter than me should figure out when a fetus can be reasonably expected to live without extreme life support measures outside the womb.

[joshcryer]

258. It's a very very good analogy.

But Southerners don't give a squat about squatters rights and in the case of the ones I knew when I lived there for 6 years, they would shoot on sight. Period.

Fortunately by feminists own admissions there are apparently no doctors that perform late term abortions on healthy women with healthy fetuses. :)

[On the Road]

256. Other:

I suppose that's a possible description of the fetus -- although a dehumanizing one -- up until the point it develops into a human being. More specifically, when the nervous system has developed enough to provide it with an early stage of conscious.

What is that point? I don't know exactly, but it's some time during the second trimester.

[piedmont]

262. Good question, and one I wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

But given a TWENTY-foot pole, I will say that I believe a fetus becomes a person sometime before birth but after fertilization. Before that time, it's a group of cells fed by the woman's body, and subject to the mother's wishes. At no time would I call it a "parasite." It is at the least a mutualistic symbiont, as it enables the "host" to carry out the fundamental goal of all living organisms: to pass on one's genes.

[RedCappedBandit]

267. How bout the embryo?

How bout sperm for that matter? Eggs?

[sandnsea]

273. Yes. I own the responsibility. I own the fetus.

Same reason I get to make the decisions for my born kids until they're able to take responsibility for all their decisions themselves.

This is so ridiculous. This is a natural state of being that just IS. Between health considerations and personal beliefs about life and cells and blastocysts, somebody has to make these decisions. The question is WHO makes them and I say it should be the woman just the same as the individual makes every other medical decision in their lives.

[Mushroom]

280. hmmmm

No. I believe it becomes my personal property after it is born. Or like the tree hanging over the street, a potential threat to people, the city owns the first 15 feet from the road, but when the tree needs immediate attention, the homeowner owns the tree. Okay, okay, okay - the birth canal is an easement. Uh-oh, I foresee subdivision problems there, surveys, public hearings, variances... Damn, how much is my unpersonhood going to cost me? Maybe you should call a patent lawyer.

[Solon]

292. No, its PART of the "carrier" as you so callously call the woman in this equation...

Your characterization is simply fucked up. A fetus is no more a piece of property than your kidneys. Legally speaking, they are the same, a part of a person, and hence, under their complete control, however, at the same time, they cannot be sold, so are not "property" by the legal definition.

[originalpckelly]

300. And calling a human being a parasite...

that's not at all callous.

[Madspirit]

305. "Parasite"

"Parasite" is a literal and scientific definition. It may make you squeamish in your romanticized notions of pregnancy but it is simply a fact. The fetus lives off the mother and cannot live otherwise. THAT is the definition of a parasite. Get over it.
Lee

[REP]

294. What Kind of Carrier? Aircraft?

Woman? What woman?

Pro-liars are scum.

[Guaranteed]

295. No, the mother doesn't own the fetus. She just owns her womb.

The fetus is making use of the womb, and the woman has a right to, at any time, revoke that license.

[phylny]

296. Can you get a life insurance policy on a fertilized egg?

And, have you made up your mind regarding in vitro fertilization and whether or not it is murder when the unused fertilized eggs are tossed out?

[originalpckelly]

301. I'm not programmed with an offhand answer, I'm not repeating what someone else is telling me.

I have to think about that for a long time, I can't make a snap decision about that because I'm not an ideologue, I'm just trying to figure out what is ethical and not ethical through logic and evidence.

Unlike yourself, I can't give a snap decision on that, because I'm not listening to the opinion of another person, just the evidence.

[phylny]

309. CAN YOU get life insurance on a fertilized egg?

Simple question, it really shouldn't require you to burn too many brain cells.

Otherwise, evasion noted.

[murloc]

311. NO!

But neither can the elderly, newborns, those with terminal illness or those with aids.

I also cannot insure a vase with life insurance.

So I don't think your question proves anything.

[phylny]

315. Sure you can get life insurance on newborns.

We did.

If a fetus is a person, then I should be able to get life insurance at conception.

If not, why not?

[murloc]

318. risk

I'll take you at your word that you had life insurance at birth, but I've not seen that before.

usually they let you buy it immediately, but there is no coverage till the baby is a few weeks old.

Anyway. Insurance companys are all about risk.

To much risk, you can't get life insurance.

If you cant get insurance on a fetus, it is only because they insurance company feels they cant make money off on those policys.

Insurance companys have no desire to get mixed up in the abortion debate. They just want to make money.

[murloc]

308. you cannot get one on a newborn

No insurance carrier will cover a newborn baby till its about a month old (maybe a few weeks).

However, I doubt that anyone would call a newborn baby property. (at least I would hope anyway)

[originalpckelly]

319. Can you get regular insurance on a fertilized egg?

You know, like all other inanimate objects that are private property.

[LanternWaste]

299. I learned a few years back ...

Mostly non-sequiter, but...

I learned a few years back that you should never ask a pregnant woman, "have you decided on a name for the fetus yet?" regardless of whether she's pro-choice or pro-life.

[murloc]

312. I'm confused...I think you mean to say

You should never ask a -carrier-, "have you decided on a name for the fetus yet?"

;)

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

302. My solution to a very difficult question: Let the pregnant woman decide! n/t

[Orsino]

303. Until the point of viability...

...I'm inclined to grant the mother-to-be complete sovereignty. I might make exception to include a spouse, or for a government that is willing to take responsibility for the eventual baby's upbringing.

[murloc]

306. This is strange and sometimes troubling thread

and its coming from all sides of debate.

So we have reduced a mother down to being a 'carrier'?

gheesh.

I'm sure the freepers are loving this thread.

[treestar]

320. I don't think it is private property

A potential human being, which cannot be property.

We make decisions about who lives and who dies in certain circumstances.

We ought to stand up for this as:

1. Admit that it is a life
2. Admit that it is being terminated
3. But maintain that in this case, the decider is the woman, that is, the power of life and death of one person over another exists, we may as well admit that - even if abortion is illegal, that woman had life or death power over that other life. This is what bothers RW men. They want total control, and nature does not give them the power in this situation.