Forums | MacLife

Late term abortions get lots of media coverage. The fact remains that late term abortions are very risky from a medical perspective. Usually they are performed only if there is a significant health risk to the woman that's more risky than carrying the pregnancy to term. This is one area where medicine tends to police itself. Few physicians would perform the procedure without medical cause. The partial-birth abortion procedure is disgusting (hell, so is a simple D&C if you read about it) and hence it's easy to ban it. But the procedure is not widely performed. The only complaint I had about the law passed was that there was no health exemption.

As for drinking and smoking, that is an interesting one. It's unwise, but should it be illegal?

You're right in that nature plays a role and makes the issue inherently "unfair". It's not fair that the woman has to bear the burden of pregnancy and childbirth, but she does. Given that she bears almost all the risk, her decision should be weighted accordingly.

You also bring up the point that even if abortion were legal, women would find other ways to terminate their pregnancies - many of which are unsafe. Indeed, this was a common occurrence before abortion was legalized. Women may try to cause a miscarriage (should they be prosecuted and jailed?), or seek out a "back alley" procedure from someone who may or may not be qualified to perform the procedure (and may or may not follow medical guidelines regarding infection control, etc.).

And what of the lives saved? Who will ensure the children born are adequately cared for? Or that the woman has proper medical care? In a libertarian system, that certainly wouldn't be the government, yet government is banning the procedure. What do we gain by putting these women or healthcare providers in jail?

Costly advances in medicine. A stay in the NICU is far from inexpensive...

user wrote:

charon wrote:

user wrote:

I think that point is only raised to confound the issue. It really isn't relevant to discuss the "rights" of the fetus. The Supreme Court decision was only about the rights of the woman.

That's only because fetuses can't sue.

Of course the rights of the fetus (if they exist) are relevant.  It's pretty much the whole damn debate.  It's the real point of contention between the two different sides.  The debate can't  just be about "a woman's control over her own body" because it's undeniable that there's another body inside hers.

No, fetal rights are not the "whole damn debate". Fetal rights are a misdirection, a play for sympathy that ignores the trauma of a woman being forced to decide between carrying a child to term or circumventing the law with a self remedy.

I think you're assuming your own conclusion.  If fetuses have the same rights as newborns, would you really consider concern for their lives to be "misdirection"?  Or mightn't you think twice about allowing abortion at will?  Even when it comes to a deathly ill person, we don't allow him to save himself by killing an innocent.

OK, I guess fetal rights isn't the whole damn debate, but it's the most important issue.  To call attention to it is certainly not "misdirection."  Just because it isn't the only issue doesn't mean it isn't very, very important.  The belief in fetal rights is why the pro-life position exists.

Last edited by charon (2007-08-23 8:44 pm)

user wrote:

No, fetal rights are not the "whole damn debate". Fetal rights are a misdirection, a play for sympathy that ignores the trauma of a woman being forced to decide between carrying a child to term or circumventing the law with a self remedy.

Why do other people who are pro-continued-legalization always argue this?

When you are arguing that a woman has the right to control her own body to a group who believe you are committing murder, you will never convince them. And to add to that, you greatly weaken the ability of other, (possibly formerly anti-continued-legalization) people, who are trying to explain why they changed their position.

The abortion debate would not exist if a large portion of the population didn't see abortion as murder. Of course the question of fetal rights are the whole damn debate.

"A woman has the right to control her own body" doesn't convince anyone of anything. Never has, and never will. It only serves to enrage the people with whom you are debating.

It is the weakest possible argument in this debate. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

jerwin wrote:

I think it's pretty strong myself. Of course, I tend to accept feminism.

The strength of an argument is dependent on its ability to convince people with differing opinions.

It may be the reason you believe abortion should be legal, but make no mistake, in a debate involving at least one person who doesn't support continued legalization, it's not only a bad argument, but it damn near destroys the chances that said person can be convinced by anyone else involved.

Nothing helps you convince someone of something more than throwing them into a blind rage, eh?

matt wrote:

jerwin wrote:

I think it's pretty strong myself. Of course, I tend to accept feminism.

The strength of an argument is dependent on its ability to convince people with differing opinions.

It may be the reason you believe abortion should be legal, but make no mistake, in a debate involving at least one person who doesn't support continued legalization, it's not only a bad argument, but it damn near destroys the chances that said person can be convinced by anyone else involved.

Nothing helps you convince someone of something more than throwing them into a blind rage, eh?

Yeah, there is that.



I think though, that it would be dishonest of me to propose a rationale for abortion that is at odds with my internal justifications for abortions. Quite a lot seems to rest on my belief that a fetus is not human. It follows that it is up to the woman to decide to do with it.

Were I to present another sort of justification for abortion, one might easily get the impression that spousal notification is a reasonable compromise, when it's rather an anathema.

Last edited by jerwin (2007-08-23 9:20 pm)

Do trees have rights?  They're alive too.  'Least I think they're alive.  Let me check my Bible...

Pariah wrote:

The argument that "life" begins at conception is ridiculous on it's face.
Once you see past that bit of fluff things are much less clear.

It's a dictionary argument, conflating many different things.

Ribtorus wrote:

Fortunately, old common law takes (took) the position that generally speaking, it's the woman who is in control of the unborn until such time as it is (was) impractical to abort. Quite a right for a non-person. Even medieval boneheads knew enough not to mess with nature's way on such a fundamental issue.

Where did you get that from?  As far as I know, the common law approach was that abortion was permissible until the quickening, i.e., fetal movement--roughly four months in.

Metacell wrote:

Do trees have rights?  They're alive too.  'Least I think they're alive.  Let me check my Bible...

Funny you should mention that.
In the old testament, life is often associated with blood.
Plants are not described as dying - except in translation to languages where they are considered alive. They whither away.

The point of a fetus being alive though isn't just that it is alive - but rather, that is a human life.

resedit wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Do trees have rights?  They're alive too.  'Least I think they're alive.  Let me check my Bible...

Funny you should mention that.
In the old testament, life is often associated with blood.
Plants are not described as dying - except in translation to languages where they are considered alive. They whither away.

The point of a fetus being alive though isn't just that it is alive - but rather, that is a human life.

Well thank you, someone made the startling and ridiculous claim the sanctity of life is the basis for freedom.  I think they would probably agree with you that that sanctity only includes human life.  I would have to question the basis for that...is it just because God says so, or is their a critical reason for it?

On a side note, the OT also often associates life with breath.

Last edited by Metacell (2007-08-24 6:37 pm)