Can one believe in life before birth and be pro choice?

[onejayhawk]

Being simple minded as I am, I just presumed that people would think that a human fetus was human. What species is a human fetus then?

You omitted a term. The human fetus is a human person. That is a person distinct from the mother.

But biologically speaking, isn't 1 individual cell alive? Doesn't it satisfy all the scientific parameters required to be called life ?

I think legally speaking what matters is the legal definition of a person and at which point personhood begins - which is sort of arbitrary and doesn't seem to rely on biological facts. But I'm not a lawyer or a doctor.

This is dilatory. Whatever standard exists for personhood, it is satisfied. That is the starting point.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As far as I'm concerned, until the fetus is capable of surviving out side the mother's body, it's not a person. And even after that point, if giving birth would endanger the mother's life or the fetus is congenitally deformed/damaged in some other way, abortion is a valid option.

Of course, this is merely the opinion of the only person in this thread who was ever capable of getting pregnant/giving birth in the first place, unless some of you are really female...

 

[timtofly]

I choose that it would be legal for the government to cut off all assistance to those non-humans relying on it for convenience sake to be aborted before they can make it on their own, merely for the inconvenience factor it causes those who have to pay the government for these life sucking members of society.

Until one can survive on their own without the benefit of society, they are not human. It does not matter if they are sentient or not. On what factor should we really be basing that it is ok to do so? Basing humanity or personhood on ones chances of survival or ability to contribute to society seems like a contrived way to artificially limit society on personal whims.

 

[Zelig]

Of course, this is merely the opinion of the only person in this thread who was ever capable of getting pregnant/giving birth in the first place, unless some of you are really female...

Lack of implantable artificial wombs is just a temporary technical problem.

 

[onejayhawk]

As far as I'm concerned, until the fetus is capable of surviving out side the mother's body, it's not a person. And even after that point, if giving birth would endanger the mother's life or the fetus is congenitally deformed/damaged in some other way, abortion is a valid option.

Of course, this is merely the opinion of the only person in this thread who was ever capable of getting pregnant/giving birth in the first place, unless some of you are really female...

This is exactly why I specified 3rd trimester. Viability varies with circumstances, but with hospital care a 7th month birth will flourish more often than not. Even at 25 weeks 3/4 will survive, though impaired development is very common that early.

J

 

[bhavv]

According to biology, yes a single living cell is alive.

However, killing a cell and abortion are not murder.

Equating abortion to murder is an oxymoronic argument.

 

[Borachio]

Isn't a fetus life from the time it's 1 cell to the time it ceases to exist?

A cell is life, right?

In that case, life precedes conception. Spermatozoa and eggs aren't dead matter.

 

[Kyriakos]

Many self-titled defenders of the people/justice/democracy etc go on about how they value life, but have no issue killing those they wish to target.

Vermin, and likely also reptilians, like Hilary and just about anyone else in western politics (not including local politicians cause those are just servants of vermin, and their symbiosis renders them subverminous)

 

[El_Machinae]

This is exactly why I specified 3rd trimester. Viability varies with circumstances, but with hospital care a 7th month birth will flourish more often than not. Even at 25 weeks 3/4 will survive, though impaired development is very common that early.

You'll drag them on-topic, kicking and screaming!

So, as I've implied, there's a bit of a problem of allowing 3rd trimester abortions if a medical complication arises such that it's a choice between the fetus and the mother. Luckily, it's likely the minority of cases. In most cases of a medical intervention it could very easily be choosing between zero survivors and one survivor. Where the mother's life is just more possible to save. This imbalance, though, will drop as medical technology advances.

I cannot really square the circle, though, in cases where it's a choice between one or the other. I think it's rather obvious that the fetus is the more innocent party. We might be riding tradition here, where the child has been deemed to be of lesser value than the adult.

It's tough. We have the right to kill in self-defense. But, it's not so obvious that we have the right to kill in self-defense for scenarios that we created in the first place. In the gripping hand, was 'severe medical complication' something that should have at least been expected as a possibility?

 

[warpus]

According to biology, yes a single living cell is alive

In that case, life precedes conception. Spermatozoa and eggs aren't dead matter.

So basically the terminology used in the OP and in the thread title is incorrect, or at least can be easily answered with: "Yes, a fetus is alive before it is born, that is basic biology, duh."

 

[Kyriakos]

In the end there can be only one (spermatozoon in the uterus).

 

[El_Machinae]

So basically the terminology used in the OP and in the thread title is incorrect, or at least can be easily answered with: "Yes, a fetus is alive before it is born, that is basic biology, duh."

I think it's pretty easy to answer the question behind the question, though.

 

[Pangur Bán]

As far as I'm concerned, until the fetus is capable of surviving out side the mother's body, it's not a person.

At the risk of having Godwin's law called down upon my name, someone might point out that Nazis believed Jews and Slavs were 'not persons' either, thus legitimizing their slaughter; blacks weren't people to 18th century Europeans and Americans, thus legitimizing their slavery. Same argument, different victims. All that matters is that the victim is weak; the strong are free to rationalize any ideological pretext they like.

 

[warpus]

I think it's pretty easy to answer the question behind the question, though.

It's even easier for people to say what they mean as opposed to using improper terminology for (it looks like) emotional impact.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ehn, I'd rather have the conversation the OP intended rather than harping on terminology. The terminology clarification was made in the first few posts and then later confirmed by the OP in post #13.

I prefer the Principle of Charity when I discuss such things, so that the conversation can elevate as fast as possible. At no point am I going to assume that someone was literally confused at to whether cells are alive. It's just faster to try to glean the question's intended meaning. No one doubts that cells're alive while they're growing. The OP is asking us to discuss conditions as if the fetus assumed moral weight during the 3rd trimester.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You'll drag them on-topic, kicking and screaming!

So, as I've implied, there's a bit of a problem of allowing 3rd trimester abortions if a medical complication arises such that it's a choice between the fetus and the mother. Luckily, it's likely the minority of cases. In most cases of a medical intervention it could very easily be choosing between zero survivors and one survivor. Where the mother's life is just more possible to save. This imbalance, though, will drop as medical technology advances.

I cannot really square the circle, though, in cases where it's a choice between one or the other. I think it's rather obvious that the fetus is the more innocent party. We might be riding tradition here, where the child has been deemed to be of lesser value than the adult.

It's tough. We have the right to kill in self-defense. But, it's not so obvious that we have the right to kill in self-defense for scenarios that we created in the first place. In the gripping hand, was 'severe medical complication' something that should have at least been expected as a possibility?

Yep, rape victims and children pregnant via incest perpetrated by their fathers, brothers, uncles, or cousins really chose to get pregnant and therefore it's their fault, and how dare they opt for abortion? Especially the 10-14-year old girls whose lives would definitely be in danger if forced to carry to term and deliver? Or women with ectopic pregnancies? Yep, it's All Their Fault. Poor innocent little fetus - keep it alive, even though its continued existence will kill its host. The mother will have a nice funeral, I guess, and the people at the local church can cry and console each other about "God's will." But there will still be a dead woman or young girl who already had a life and didn't have to die.

At the risk of having Godwin's law called down upon my name, someone might point out that Nazis believed Jews and Slavs were 'not persons' either, thus legitimizing their slaughter; blacks weren't people to 18th century Europeans and Americans, thus legitimizing their slavery. Same argument, different victims. All that matters is that the victim is weak; the strong are free to rationalize any ideological pretext they like.

I sincerely hope you are not equating me with Hitler/Nazis or slavers. That had definitely better not be what your post is about. I'm not interested in getting into a personal argument here in a RD thread, but feel free to take this to PM to clarify what you mean.


I've encountered pro-life people elsewhere who think that pro-choice people run around telling other women to have abortions and that we actually celebrate every time a fetus is aborted. This is sheer propaganda and rather hateful, at that. There are some times when abortion is the merciful option, to save the mother's life, or if the fetus is malformed past any chance of a meaningful life. What's the point of saving a fetus that medical tests have already confirmed will be born without portions of its anatomy necessary to live at all, let alone live normally? Or if they know the fetus will be born dead? I can't fathom that.


I don't celebrate abortion. And for what it's worth, to this day I feel horrible about having unwittingly given permission for one - for one of my cats. I didn't know she was pregnant when I took her to the vet for spaying. He didn't bother to call me to ask if he should continue with the operation; he went ahead and did it anyway. I didn't find out until after, when he said, "Oh, by the way, she was pregnant. I aborted the kittens."

 

[warpus]

Ehn, I'd rather have the conversation the OP intended rather than harping on terminology. The terminology clarification was made in the first few posts and then later confirmed by the OP in post #13.

I prefer the Principle of Charity when I discuss such things, so that the conversation can elevate as fast as possible. At no point am I going to assume that someone was literally confused at to whether cells are alive. It's just faster to try to glean the question's intended meaning. No one doubts that cells're alive while they're growing. The OP is asking us to discuss conditions as if the fetus assumed moral weight during the 3rd trimester.

Don't view it as harping - It just doesn't look from where I'm sitting like the OP has a good grasp on the terminology and concepts involved. I didn't see him say anywhere that he was wrong and that he actually meant to ask something else. Instead he's actually arguing with the people who are trying to tell him that he made a slight mistake.

Mistakes are fine, but for the conversation to carry forward the person making the mistake should accept what has happened, say: "Oh, whoops, here's what I meant to say instead: _______", and then we can continue. I didn't see anything like that in post #13, but it's possible I missed something elsewhere, I admit.

I'm not here to harp on anyone, there just appears to be a lot of confusion in OP's mind about the basics involved, so it seems like discussing the basics is very pertinent. If we can't agree on the basics or even the basic terminology used, how can we discuss things far more complex?

I can guess what the OP is trying to say, but that seems like bad form. Why assume when you can just read what was written and go by that?

 

[timtofly]

They are told that the choice is easier, if there is no personhood or humanity involved in the decision.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I sincerely hope you are not equating me with Hitler/Nazis or slavers. That had definitely better not be what your post is about. I'm not interested in getting into a personal argument here in a RD thread, but feel free to take this to PM to clarify what you mean.

Just pointing to the similarities in logic. The 'personhood' reasoning creates sub-sections of humans entitled to rights or denied them depending on which sub-section they're placed in. I appreciate that you find the fetus as sub-human claim more plausible rationalization of rights denial than the black as sub-human claim or Jew as sub-human claim, but that doesn't mean (as the examples I cited show) that this logic will be applied by others in the same way; its application will depend purely on who has power. The sad reality of life is that some abortions do need to happen for a variety of reasons and the law does as a practical matter need to distinguish it (or various types of it) from other types of killing, but the whole 'personhood' logic takes us down a very dark road and is NOT the way to rationalize abortion.