For pro-choicers: where do you draw the line, and why?

[aociswundumho]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.

What part of "birth" is such a difficult concept for you guys?

 

[aociswundumho]

What part of "birth" is such a difficult concept for you guys?

What's special about birth? All that happened is the baby moved a few feet to a new location. Oh, and it breathes air now. What do either of those have to do with rights?

 

[azgreg]

18 years old

 

[Indlib]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.

The constitution. That's why.

 

[aociswundumho]

The constitution. That's why.

I don't see how the constitution provides an answer.

 

[Phys251]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.

If you don't understand viability, then you don't understand the concept of a woman's right to choose. It is that simple.

 

[Indlib]

I don't see how the constitution provides an answer.

Roe v Wade.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

What's special about birth? All that happened is the baby moved a few feet to a new location. Oh, and it breathes air now. What do either of those have to do with rights?

Any line is going to be arbitrarily drawn. Birth seems to be the most logical place to draw it as the baby can be supported without the mother.

 

[aociswundumho]

If you don't understand viability, then you don't understand the concept of a woman's right to choose. It is that simple.

What's so special about viability? Viability is simply one man's opinion regarding the chances of the fetus's survival outside the womb. How does that confer rights?

 

[aociswundumho]

Any line is going to be arbitrarily drawn. Birth seems to be the most logical place to draw it as the baby can be supported without the mother.

How does the baby being able to live without the mother confer rights to the baby?

 

[Phys251]

What's so special about viability?

I figured you'd say something like that. 😔

Viability is simply one man's opinion regarding the chances of the fetus's survival outside the womb. How does that confer rights?

For the same reason you can't be forced to donate bone marrow, even if that's the one thing someone needs to stay alive.

 

[aociswundumho]

I figured you'd say something like that. 😔

For the same reason you can't be forced to donate bone marrow, even if that's the one thing someone needs to stay alive.

The baby still needs people to stay alive after it is born.

 

[Phys251]

The baby still needs people to stay alive after it is born.

People, yes, but it doesn't have to specifically be the mother. Before viability, it does.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

How does the baby being able to live without the mother confer rights to the baby?

Well, it depends what you mean by rights. I’m talking about rights conferred by the state. Legal rights. The baby being alive without the mother confers rights because the state says it does. Legally there has to be some line that is easily enforceable. From a practical standpoint birth is about as easy place to draw the line as any.

If you want to argue morality and moral rights there is no hard line. However, again once you are able to survive without literally relying on another human being is a moral distinction. Up until that point another persons literal body is keeping you alive.

 

[aociswundumho]

People, yes, but it doesn't have to specifically be the mother. Before viability, it does.

What difference does that make? Why does the baby have rights now but it didn't when it was inside the mother's body?

 

[Mr Person]

Where it is because that is the honest assessment. There is no objective test of what makes a person, but there is an objective test of whether a fetus can survive. Viability. Medical science will push it back and so be it (maybe), but it's the best answer: state's interest in potential life vs. individual's interest in bodily autonomy.

What better measure than whether or not it can survive outside the womb with medical care?

 

[aociswundumho]

Well, it depends what you mean by rights.

The right to life, i.e. the right to not be murdered.

If you want to argue morality and moral rights there is no hard line.

Ok, then use a range.

However, again once you are able to survive without literally relying on another human being is a moral distinction. Up until that point another persons literal body is keeping you alive.

I don't see any moral distinction.

You are saying that because the mother is keeping the baby alive, therefore it's ok to kill the baby.

After the baby is born, it still relies on the mother (or other people) to stay alive, but now it's wrong to kill the baby?

 

[Antiwar]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights.

You're misunderstanding. The law is based on viability, and I think that viability has exceptions. In other words, I think that some late-term abortions are legal after the given viability point in pregnancy has been passed.

We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

I'm a centrist. I draw the line at age 2.5 years plus 4.5 months.

 

[Lovebug]

What part of "birth" is such a difficult concept for you guys?

Birth? Full term, premature birth? When do we start caring?

 

[Lovebug]

default - Stanford Medicine Children's Health

A baby born before 37 weeks of pregnancy is considered premature or born too early. The number of premature births in the U.S. is rising. Twins and other multiples are more likely to be premature than single birth babies.

www.stanfordchildrens.org

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

 

[Antiwar]

What's special about birth? All that happened is the baby moved a few feet to a new location. Oh, and it breathes air now. What do either of those have to do with rights?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are giddy as can be about castle doctrine. What does that have to do with your comment? "All that happened is a person moved a few feet to a new location." That'd make a great Hallmark congratulations on having a baby card.

 

[Lovebug]

What's special about birth? All that happened is the baby moved a few feet to a new location. Oh, and it breathes air now. What do either of those have to do with rights?

Have you ever tried pushing a peanut through your urethra?

 

[Antiwar]

Birth? Full term, premature birth? When do we start caring?

There's no we that cares equally, but a significant amount of people probably care from when pregnancy is known (not really conception) to death.

 

[Antiwar]

Have you ever tried pushing a peanut through your urethra?

I think some caliber of bullet would be more appropriate for 'the guy with the worst screen name on DP.'