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

[dncc]

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.

I guess I'm just guessing in that case.

Do you think that women who are pregnant in the census should count twice (at least twice--she could be carrying twins).

 

[VanceMack]

Is it ok to kill it a few seconds after the egg is fertilized?

Leftists believe it is OK...even to the point of desirable...to kill the baby any time it is an inconvenience to the mother.

 

[Gordy327]

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.

Birth.

 

[Gordy327]

Leftists believe it is OK...even to the point of desirable...to kill the baby any time it is an inconvenience to the mother.

Who says that? Or are you spewing partisan nonsense?

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

Because it's not a baby in utero nor is it it a legal person with rights.

 

[maquiscat]

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

Actually this is a very valid question, as even among most pro- lifers there is a wide range of when, outside of medical life threatening situation, the cut-off should be, and many do support a cut-off. Most will say "viability", but the definition of that will vary from "the doctor determines viability" to a specific week, from machine aided 50% chance of survival, to non-machine aided 75% chance for survival.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

I'm sure you addressed this later in the thread, and I withdraw the question if you did, but how exactly does that address when rights are conferred upon the offspring?

 

[choiceone]

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.

Why would anyone imagine the unborn have rights? Without getting information on the pregnancy from the woman, you can't even know whether or not she's pregnant. Birth is a watershed moment.

 

[maquiscat]

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

But it is no longer taking of any one person's bodily resources without permission. Anyone who cares for the child, however reluctantly, is still consenting to the use of their bodily resources.

 

[maquiscat]

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?

Given that no country was specified from the OP, were you aware that in some countries, that allow abortion, viability is defined as that point when the fetus has a 50% chance of survival without extraordinary means, i.e. no NICU? IIRC, Ireland is one of those.

 

[j brown's body]

Abortion should be an option up until the time of birth.

"The fetus only exists because of the woman's body -- not yours, not that of some possibly corrupt and stupid politician in Washington, and not the body of some possibly ignorant and venal politician in a state legislature. As I have watched this debate develop, and as I have considered with astonishment the increasingly byzantine efforts to "draw lines" about the point of viability, the time at which a full set of rights attaches to the fetus, and all the rest, I have become increasingly convinced that the right of the woman to control her own body when she is pregnant must be absolute up to the point of birth. All the attempts to craft legislation circumscribing that right prior to birth quickly become enmeshed in what are finally subjective claims that can be disputed into eternity, and impossible of proof in one direction or another.

Certainly, the woman's right to an abortion must be absolute in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. And even in the third trimester, up to the time of birth, that right must be absolute, and the decision must be that of the woman in consultation with those medical personnel she chooses. Yes, a decision to abort late in pregnancy may be agonizingly difficult, just as it may be at an earlier time -- but whatever agony is involved is that of the woman, not a politician or bureaucrat who is unjustly empowered to make decisions that affect someone else on the most profound level. The responsibility and the consequences are the woman's, and no one else's. The choice is also hers, and no one else's.

In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. For the reason indicated above, the fetus is not a person in the same sense the mother is: the fetus would not exist but for the woman who carries it. The woman's right to her own body must, in fact and in logic, take precedence over whatever rights you believe the fetus possesses, up to the time of birth."

Link

 

[maquiscat]

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

Since murder is a killing that is illegal, abortion is only murder where it is illegal. Otherwise it is not murder.

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?

The distinction is in the consensual use of another person's bodily resources. Once out of the mother's body, if a person does not consent to provide for the baby from their bodily resources, they are not required to. Financial and material resources, that can be different, but not bodily resources. If we say that life trumps that right to not consent to the use of one's bodily resources, then we would be allowed to take organs and blood and such from people, when another person's life is at risk, as long as the "donor's" life was not threatened by the removal.

Also there is the conflation that a right to end the use of one's bodily resources means the woman has a right to terminate her own offspring. That is not true. The result that the only safe methods, all falling under the label abortion, is the termination of the fetus, is a limitation of the current medical technology and knowledge, not a right in and of itself. If a woman had a right to terminate her own offspring prior to birth, then she could also do so for her offspring when it is being carried by a surrogate, which is not a right. It would in fact violate the surrogate's bodily autonomy right.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Actually this is a very valid question, as even among most pro- lifers there is a wide range of when, outside of medical life threatening situation, the cut-off should be, and many do support a cut-off. Most will say "viability", but the definition of that will vary from "the doctor determines viability" to a specific week, from machine aided 50% chance of survival, to non-machine aided 75% chance for survival.

Not really. Most will say "birth" when asked.

 

[Questerr]

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.

Wherever the market says it should be. If some woman is rich enough to pay a doctor to abort her fetus 2 seconds before birth, she should be able to. Isn’t that the proper AnCap position?

We definitely shouldn’t have any kind of government making laws about. It’s similar to how if someone wants to pay enough money to have another person murdered (correctly paying off all of the private law enforcement entities that would require) they should be able to, yes?

 

[choiceone]

The newborn baby still needs to be taken care of, hence the conflict still exists either with the mother or with someone else.

The help involved is not trivial, but it is radically different. An embryo or fetus can kill a woman despite all claims to the contrary simply by being inside her body and attached to it. It can cause damage to her body without killing her, and it can cause serious illnesses. Even trivial illnesses its presence causes, such as morning sickness, can become non-trivial affairs requiring hospitalization.

When a baby is born, it can't kill, damage, or sicken anyone's body any more, because it is outside the body and, being little, it can be controlled by everyone else. Of course, it may be horribly loud, but you can wear ear plugs and still care for it.

The pregnant woman takes care of the embryo or fetus by sharing oxygen, nutrients, and anti-bodies with it and being burdened with carrying in 24/7 for nine months. No bathroom breaks, no meal breaks, no time off after 8-10 hours' work, and no weekends. There is no form of paid labor in the US where a worker can be treated in this way: it's illegal. But of course, the woman is laboring 24/7 and not receiving any pay.

After a baby is born, people can take turns caring for it. They can have bathroom and lunch breaks. They can sleep without laboring. They can hire a babysitter and take the weekend off. Even if the baby is in a hospital, the nurses and doctors aren't working 24/7 for nine months.

If a man was forced to labor physically in the same way as a pregnant woman, he'd call it slavery and he'd be totally correct.

 

[choiceone]

I guess I'm just guessing in that case.

Do you think that women who are pregnant in the census should count twice (at least twice--she could be carrying twins).

You can't count the unborn, because we don't know whether or not she is carrying one or two and the Constitution stipulates an "exact Enumeration," as opposed to a projected count.

The notion that the Constitution is not clear on women being persons and embryos and fetuses not being persons is made ridiculous because of that original stipulation.

 

[Gordy327]

Actually this is a very valid question, as even among most pro- lifers there is a wide range of when, outside of medical life threatening situation, the cut-off should be, and many do support a cut-off. Most will say "viability", but the definition of that will vary from "the doctor determines viability" to a specific week, from machine aided 50% chance of survival, to non-machine aided 75% chance for survival.

Viability is defined to be 23-24 weeks gestation, with a 50% chance of survival. The doctor does not determine viability, but rather can determine if a fetus is viable or not. Viability is also a reasonable compromise between both sides of the issue. Although, for some prolifers, that's still not good enough for them.

 

[maquiscat]

Not really. Most will say "birth" when asked.

Mistype and I missed it. My apologies. Pro-choice was what I meant. Please reread with that correction.

 

[maquiscat]

Viability is defined to be 23-24 weeks gestation, with a 50% chance of survival. The doctor does not determine viability, but rather can determine if a fetus is viable or not. Viability is also a reasonable compromise between both sides of the issue. Although, for some prolifers, that's still not good enough for them.

See my later post where I point out that the 23-24 week point is not a universal definition of viability, nor is the use of machines to sustain an offspring universal in the definition of viability. Remember the OP has not limited the discussion to abortion in the US.

 

[Gordy327]

See my later post where I point out that the 23-24 week point is not a universal definition of viability, nor is the use of machines to sustain an offspring universal in the definition of viability. Remember the OP has not limited the discussion to abortion in the US.

Viability is the current medical determination. It is also the basis for the cutoff of elective abortions. A fetus born at such early gestation will require significant health care and management. Even then, survival is not guaranteed.

 

[VanceMack]

Who says that? Or are you spewing partisan nonsense?

Because it's not a baby in utero nor is it it a legal person with rights.

Its funny that in the one line you ask a stupid question and then in the second line you answer it.....

 

[maquiscat]

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

When the now baby is no longer in the woman, however that happens.

 

[maquiscat]

Viability is the current medical determination. It is also the basis for the cutoff of elective abortions. A fetus born at such early gestation will require significant health care and management. Even then, survival is not guaranteed.

Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.[4]

Various jurisdictions have different legal definitions of viability. In Ireland, under the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018, fetal viability is defined as "the point in a pregnancy at which, in the reasonable opinion of a medical practitioner, the foetus is capable of survival outside the uterus without extraordinary life-sustaining measures." [Definitions (Part 2)(8)][7]

 

[Gordy327]

Its funny that in the one line you ask a stupid question and then in the second line you answer it.....

I see you can only dodge the question and demonstrate ignorance of embryology or the law.

 

[Gordy327]

That doesn't really refute what I said.

 

[VanceMack]

I see you can only dodge the question and demonstrate ignorance of embryology or the law.

I didnt dodge the question...I simply pointed out how well you answered it.