I agree but I think if a fetus is a non person we shouldn't count that as double murder or double assault but as agravating circumstances in the assault or murder of the mother. For example if I kill you your dog too in the process is that double murder?
that's not a constitutional issue. the state can afford more protections for a fetus than the constitution (which is silent on the issue) affords. but even under Roe analysis, if a fetus is in the 2nd trimester, terminating it AS THE MOTHER without a health reason for doing so is not kosher. here we're talking about someone other than the mother with no privacy rights at stake....no competing interests at all.
I stated earlier there are many reasons why we should reduce abortions even leaving out the question of value of fetus. For one there is plenty of evidence that having an abortion can cause mental and physical damage. As an elective medical procedure it could also be a cost saving in terms of reducing medical procedures. I would look at reducing abortions following the model of preventive medicine which would bypass the questions of choice versus life. True Roe did say that but the court has sense upheld having an abortion beyond the first trimester. I think you are missing my point and no where did I say that the fetus is irrelevant or that the other side, any side's, concerns where irrelevant. My point is that we can never get consensus on the issue but in the meantime there are practical ways of reducing abortions, which I think we all want, without resolving the other issues.
I know YOU didn't say it was irrelevant. I'm not missing your points at all. To people out there who place some value on an unborn fetus....to suggest that their concern is "irrelevant" to a discussion on abortion is pretty offensive. It's going to cause pushback if that's the sort of tact that gets used in "building consensus." And that's all I was commenting on. My response to that "irrelevant" post was, i believe, my first response at all as to the actual discussion of the fetus, itself. And your post I responded to started by talking about splitting the difference between rhester and mc mark. The "irrelevant" comment and the defense of that thereafter is all I was addressing in my responses to you, aside from our side discussion about laws with respect to "double-murder." and yes the Court allows for abortions past the first trimester...I said that...provided there are concerns for the mother's health...the devil is in the details as to how THAT has been ultimately interpreted.
No, the personhood of the fetus has absolutely no bearing on the debate at all for two reasons: 1) It is an impossible issue to resolve without shoehorning in some moral absolutist position that can't be rationally defended. 2) Even if the fetus is a person, its rights do not trump a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. If somebody is drawing blood from tubes strapped to your veins in order to stay alive, are you obligated to remain in such a situation simply because not doing so will result in the other person's death? Of course not.
Maybe it could be comprehensive parent/child sex education. That way, everyone is on the same page. I guarantee, though, that the kind of sex education I recieved back in the day would cause major histrionics among the religious and prudish.
We should afford those protections when the mother says so. There are other circumstances where the protections should kick in (late term abortions without REALLY good cause), but when the mother says she values the fetus inside her, it should be protected.
I was referring to shoe-horning in some moral absolutist position that cannot be rationally defended. Sorry, I should have edited better. I love how you compare the pregnant mother essentially to a kidnapping victim who apparently against her will watches her life force being drained for another. This has been an act of creation not kidnapping.
Not complete lunacy. My biggest problem with abortion is that it is a medical procedure that is completely preventable. With enough education and ubiquitous (how about universal birth control available at the beginning of menstruation) birth control, we could make abortion a thing of the past because we can prevent it earlier. If we treated this problem like you treat cancer (the problem in this analogy is the abortion, not the fetus), we would focus on getting people to change their behavior because all medical procedures are inherently dangerous. We don't even have to get to the rights of the fetus to agree that reducing the numbers of a completely preventable medical procedure is a good thing.
A woman seeking an abortion has another life depending on her against her will. Why should she be compelled to surrender her right to personal autonomy for that life?
So this is where LScola is at now: It is a life (hypothetically) that was created by choices made by the woman, but her right not to be inconvenienced outweighs the right of another human being so she should be allowed to kill it.
She made a choice to engage in sex. Abortion is not a form a birth control. This alone seems to be the main cog in the pro-life's wheel. You can draw up all the scenarios you want. But at the end of the day, if the abortion is simply being used as an "oh crap, I forgot to use a condom" form of birth control, then it is killing an innocent victim. I have no problems with a woman selecting the abortion in serious health situations or rape situations(even date rape). Otherwise, carry it to term, and put it up for adoption. Give the child a chance.
THE PERSONHOOD OF THE FETUS IS THE DEBATE!!! this is hilarious, honestly. where have you guys been for the last 40 years or so this has been debated?? what is it that you think is being debated?? by the way this argument: 2) Even if the fetus is a person, its rights do not trump a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. If somebody is drawing blood from tubes strapped to your veins in order to stay alive, are you obligated to remain in such a situation simply because not doing so will result in the other person's death? Of course not. is utter fail. because that logic takes abortion law farther than the state of the law as it exists. are you guys arguing for more liberal abortion rights than Roe v. Wade allowed?? because even Roe puts restrictions on when someone can get an abortion, absent health concerns. so, yes...the ultra conservative Supreme Court that gave us Roe v. Wade is holding you down and says that even though that little fetus is drawing blood from your tubes, you still gotta keep it after 90 days absent a health reason otherwise. its rights at that point absolutely trump the woman's rights, again, in the absence of a health concern otherwise. drat, huh??!!!
One of the best discussions on abortion I've had is with Dr. Ron Paul as he helped my wife through a miscarriage. Basically he told me as a licensed physician the state of Texas held him legally liable for the protection of the unborn under his care. He told me if there was an injury or death to the unborn there were already rights afforded the unborn fetus. Basically there is a double standard when it comes to protection of the unborn: An OB/Gyn risks legal liability to protect the unborn fetus. (shocking ) The abortionist is held harmless "since the health of the mother is at stake" (Roe-Wade) Like I said we have to start by assigning a worth or value to the unborn fetus before we can reduce abortions. To hold an unborn human as worthless or without any value is not a position that will ever reduce abortions. Determine the value or worth of the unborn fetus, decide if it should have any right to protection and then start working on ways to reduce abortions. If you do not start from this position then abortion is nothing more than a form of birth control, which is nothing more than a form of population control.
Well said and my thoughts too. I think we can agree to disagree yet practically work towards reducing abortion by following the model of preventive medicine and reducing the need to have abortions.
