This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is a Fetus a Person?
The debate over whether abortion should be considered as murder often focuses on the question of whether the fetus is a person or not.
Here the issue of culture and religion comes in.
But what does it take to identify a fetus as a person? There are thinkers today with the belief that a fetus can be called a human being, but should not be called a person because it takes more to be a person than just having genetic material.
Philosopher Mary Ann Warren argues that in order to be considered a person, a being should have the following characteristics:
1. A developed capacity for reasoning.
2. Self awareness
3.Consciousness and ability to feel pain
4. Self motivated activity
5. Capacity to comminicate messages of an indefinite variety of types.
It would seem as if even new born babies may not be considered as persons according to the aforementioned school of thought.
No doubt infanticide has always got widespread condemnation, but abortion has always been a controversial issue.
So, what do you think? Is a fetus a person?
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
You are trying to fight to have control over a woman's choices because of YOUR religious beliefs.
Ryan Johnson
The UDHR states that everyone has a right to religion and their own beliefs. And in Roe v Wade it was concluded that any woman, for any reason may have an abortion.
my belief is that this is a good law because under the circumstances of rape no woman no matter the age should have to go through with having a baby after having sex without consent. We should not be able to control a woman's choice of having an abortion it is their choice to make not ours.
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
You KNOW that I do not get distracted by your diversionary tactics.
The topic is:
"Is a Fetus a Person? The debate over whether abortion should be considered as murder often focuses on the question of whether the fetus is a person or not."
A) It is determined, by law, that a fetus is not a person.
B) Abortion is legal in the US.
What part of that do you not understand?
I assume you have never had to make the choice to carry a pregnancy to term, or have an abortion. If you did ever have to make that difficult choice for yourself, I would support whatever you chose...just as I support many women in the choices they make for themselves. Whatever YOUR religious beliefs are, it does NOT give you the right to control a woman's choice for herself.
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
Andres Aullet 10+
It is very difficult to discuss this topic putting religion aside.
Nobody considers an egg, or a spermatozoid a person, correct? and a fertilized egg of a few days has much more in common with either one of those than it has with a newborn.
So, if it were possible... putting religion aside for a moment, where does one draw the artificial line between a spermatozoid, or an egg, and a newborn? a few days? a few weeks? when certain characteristics appear? which characteristics? How does one factor in both the jurisdiction and the wellbeing of the mother? Does the quality of life that can be offered to the offspring play any role? or is it just a matter of ensuring babies are born and then passing on responsibility to someone else?
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
Actually, when you can grow an embryo in a vat, I would probably be OK with ending abortion. Women get to choose and the fetus gets to live. Just take the fetus out, throw it in a jar and walk away. Someone else can pay for it and raise it. Maybe the government? Oh but wait, the government gets its money from you and me. But I don't want to pay for it so you can. But then, who would own it?
At current estimates we would need about 50,000 vats a year. Someone could make a fortune. And in about 10 years we would have an additional 500,000 children to school, who would of course in another 10 years need some additional vats. Maybe some jobs so they could be taxed to support the vat program.
But people don't want a vat program. They want women to be the vats.
Lejan . 30+
One can not answer those questions without the use of definition, by which itself, a debate about it becomes as unsolvable as opposed opinions are involved.
In Mary Ann Warren's consideration I can easily put a raven, quite a remarkable bird, and it turns into a person qua her definition. And if I define my conditions, who then decides, which ones are more valid?
Let's define murder as an 'intentional act of ending a life form of ones own species', then, and only by this, abortion turns into murder. If my definition is framed another way, abortion is no murder. So what is it?
As the complexity and insolubility of those 'question of principle' rises with the number of intermingling definitions and involved belief-systems, I therefore prefer abortion only to be decided upon only those who are directly involved in it. Anything else neither helps nor solves the unsolvable.
And because this may become a very difficult decision to many woman due to the nature of the subject, I believe in her right to get the best educational and emotional support, free of charge and any underlying or hidden agenda, by trained professionals out of the community she happens to live in.
This debate is ongoing and resparkling for years and years on end now, and for some parties involved I wish, if just a fraction of their attention and energy was focused on the born, instead of the unborn, many children would have had a better chance for a better life in which there were brought into.
Lip-service is easy, yet action is what it takes to make the change for a better!
Considering abortion is a matter to offer help, not condemnation!
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Adriaan Braam 20+
One reason is that there is a soul building a body.
This is my favourite TED talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_tsiaras_conception_to_birth_visualized.html
At birth, with taking the first breath, a fetus becomes a human being. We are created a dual citizen at birth, IOW a temporary physical body in the natural world connected by correspondence to an immortal spirit-body in the spiritual world.
At the stage of birth, however, the baby should have a clean slate, spiritually. because we are here to built the best character we possibly can, with hopefully the least amount of hereditary hangups.
Luis Javier Salvador 30+
I guess we all are 9 months (or 7 or 8) older than our ID states, especially if we consider a fetus a person, although it would be kind of difficult to establish the exact day of conception.
Well, just a thought.
Random Chance 30+
OR harvesting, picking, reaping and others I can't think of, that are less volatile terms.
When we intentionally end the life of a human being, we call it murder. Premeditated murder.
But, a fetus is not a person but only a human being (murder?) that hasn't really developed into the "being".
They are, but they are not being.
We need to really be educated, without hidden moral lies and motives, about life. But we really don't know the truth and many of the so-called experts are not trustworthy.
Just want to add, that though I am on the side of women in this regard (60/40), I don't understand the concept of slave-ownership of the fetus, baby, child.
Ultimately, we should all mind our own business, but since pregnancy takes two, so should abortion, for the ownership has to be between two.
Using rape is a lousy example. It is only a way of stopping the conversation. Unless, women believe, think or pretend that all coupling with a male is actually a form of rape. Do ladies think this? I know many who do. It is a very dangerous slope to slide around on.
Clearly, the Christian country known as America has virtually no qualms about killing millions of people, particularly babies and children. So, methinks from that alone, this isn't even a moral dilemma at all.
Colleen Steen 500+
Lest we misunderstand the meaning of rape:
"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as a person who is unconscious or incapacitated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
If it is determined by law that a fetus is NOT a person, and if abortion is legal, it is reasonable to expect those in the community to respect those laws, and the rights of others, no matter what their personal beliefs and preferences are.
It is a "moral dilemma" for those who have certain beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others. I do not agree with imposing one's beliefs onto others.
Ce Gzz
Colleen Steen 500+
Nothing is being imposed on you. When/if you face the decision, you have the choice to carry the pregnancy to term or not. That is simply a human right, for each of us to decide how our body will be used.
Gail . 50+
If you are offended by abortions because your god doesn't like them, then don't have one. It's that simple. But please don't impose your god's dictates on those who don't recognize it.
You know, if you want to convince women to stop having abortions, it would help if you would speak to them with civility. I've read your hateful and ignorant comments. There is no need to treat TEDsters so badly. Perhaps it's time for you to read the terms of service. They require you to treat others with respect. So far, you are failing to do that.
Ce Gzz
Linda Taylor 50+
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 1
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Constitutional rights are granted when a human being becomes a person.
Human rights and civil rights are not the same. Human rights were established in 1948.
But you have all the rights in the world as a human being and a person to come up with your own belief system.
Gail . 50+
The fertilized egg IS the property of the woman. It is a parasite in HER body. If the child can survive on its own, then it has a right to live. If it cannot, it is not a person. It's a POTENTIAL person.
Colleen Steen 500+
As much as you would like to, you CANNOT dictate how a woman or young girl will use her body...that is a violation of human rights.
In case you didn't know, the fetus is totally sustained by the systems of the woman's body, so technically, the fetus does indeed "belong" to the pregnant woman/girl.
Please avoid speaking about things of which you apparently are unaware. As Linda reminds you Ce Gzz, you are welcome to your own belief system.
Linda Taylor 50+
Not always.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
Fetus is Fast Evolving True Universal Species.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
chen xin
i think the westen much more go fowad to laws .and you laws tells what you should do .while the easten do it much more from the morality.well i think laws are much more peoper fot it because it can prevent doing it from our emotins and we may have much long sight to this question and and i think we are making it gradually .it si a good machine processed to learn from .
Colleen Steen 500+
The law, provides a choice for women to have abortions in a safe environment with the proceedure done by competent medical professionals, rather than some of the unsafe, dangerous ways the proceedure was done prior to the law.
The woman continues to take into consideration her own beliefs, and has the freedom to consider ALL relevant information, often with the help of councelors. In the shelter and family center where I volunteered, I never heard anyone tell a woman what she "should" do. We were there to support her in a very difficult decision, and encouraged the women to consider ALL aspects of the decision. The law protects her freedom to have a safe abortion when/if that is what she chooses.
Noveed Hussain
Colleen Steen 500+
Education for ALL men/women/girls/boys is IMPORTANT! It takes TWO to create a pregnancy!
Actually, some of the young girls who are raped do not know anything about the reproductive process, and it is not a choice for them...that is not "morally good" either, do you think? Whose responsibility is that?
Education is provided in the women's clinics here, including methods of birth control, and abortion, as a method of birth control IS ALWAYS DISCOURAGED.
Colleen Steen 500+
Because of cultural, religious beliefs, or simply because of the demand of her partner, women often cannot say no to sex, so abstinence is not an option for many women.
Birth control is forbidden by some religions, so that is not an option for many women.
Abortion is forbidden by some religions, so that is not an option for some women.
Where does that leave a woman? At the mercy of her partner or her religion, without any control regarding how her body will be used.
And then men criticize women for not doing something about the problem, and give her total responsibility!!!
Think about it my friend.
Noveed Hussain
I believe this is an exceptional case if not you tell me that when you were volunteer what was the percentage of cases like this?? What I think is that we should teach our younger generation that how they can avoid pregnancy instead of wasting our time whether the fetus is person or not.
Ken brown 30+
Children may play act at knowing but emotionally they don't know because we were suppose to protect them til they were old enough to make their own decisions. Noveed what age group were you thinking of? Young teenage women 15 and over? This could explain the different view points of the posting direction though it is just a guess on my part.
EDIT
I should have used the words "Hint" and "Hinted at" rather than the words "Explain" So sorry everyone if this post confuses anyone, my mistake.
Colleen Steen 500+
They are ALL exceptional cases....each one different.....each one important.
Sorry I do not have that number for you. I agree....we should educate people more. The next question is.....are those who need education open to that possibility? We have religious fundamentalists bombing womens health centers, killing medical professionals who provide education, along with lots of innocent people. Do you think they might change their destructive practices and get some education?
Linda Taylor 50+
She could get the chemotherapy for the leukemia and it would most likely harm the fetus. She could abort the pregnancy and have the chemo and try for a pregnancy later. Or she could delay the chemo, carry the pregnancy and risk her own life.
She is dead now. She chose to have the baby. She told me that wanted to know what being a mother was like before she died. Chances are good she would have made it through the chemo and in to remission. There was even talk of getting a court order.
I supported her decision and helped her understand to the best of my ability. Just as I supported all the women who chose differently, I try to support them from their ethical framework, not mine. I understand from the front lines what some of the results could be if this option were legally removed for women.
Because of my experiences, I understand women's rights, I understand children's rights and I understand the threats to them.
Colleen Steen 500+
People are NOT empowered when other people control and dominate them. We empower people by giving them the tools they need to empower themselves. Those who impose their own beliefs on others are simply trying to control, dominate and oppress. I know you know this Linda.....it is for the rest of the listening audience:>)
chen xin
we cant force sb to do something . but we can influence sb to do something
Colleen Steen 500+
Noveed Hussain
At the end of the day I think that we should educate the people first but where a woman tend to have abortion we should leave on her instead of forcing her not to do this.
Noveed Hussain
Colleen Steen 500+
Regarding my comment:
"People are NOT empowered when other people control and dominate them. We empower people by giving them the tools they need to empower themselves. Those who impose their own beliefs on others are simply trying to control, dominate and oppress. I know you know this Linda.....it is for the rest of the listening audience:>)"
I know this Noveed, and I believe Linda knows this as well. Many people would like to impose their own beliefs on others, and I do not agree with that concept, nor do I believe it to be good for our global community.
Linda Taylor 50+
Many adolescents have that magical thinking. 'It happens to other people not me.' There are limits to education and we tend to forget that.
The consequences of her decision were deadly.
Ce Gzz
Even about possible cancer years after, right? and they are told about how they can also help them with the trauma post-abortion later? right!
Colleen Steen 500+
The article in the link you provided, clearly says..."The medical examiner's office said that an intrauterine pregnancy contributed to her death"
Do your homework!
Linda Taylor 50+
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
I think you have been misinformed...or maybe not at all informed!
I understand that you do not agree with abortion, and you are going around in circles trying to argue against the facts.
A medical examiner is not in any way responsible for counceling a woman regarding abortion, so for you to say that the " the examiner's office could have warned her before just putting her inside your favorite Planned Parenthood. NEGLIGENCE all the way" is ridiculous!!!
The medical examiner, apparently did his/her job as appropriate, and ruled that an "intrauterine pregnancy contributed to her death". It appears that her "pregnancy CONTRIBUTED to her death", otherwise the medical report would have said that abortion was the CAUSE of death.
You have no idea of the circumstances. That article was posted on the "Christian Post", so it would not surprise me if the details were inaccurate or altogether missing.
Colleen Steen 500+
Thankfully, I have never had to make the choices involved with considering abortion, nor have any of the men who have commented on this thread. I have, however, interacted with many very young girls as I volunteered in the shelter. It is not an easy decision to make, nor is it made any easier with the contradictory, hypocritical "advice" of religiously oriented people in the girls life. It is not unusual for the "christian" father of the pregnant girl to also be the father of the developing fetus, and as a "good christian" he forces the young girl to carry the pregnancy to term because he follows his churches teachings, which are against abortion. All circumstances need to be evaluated, and the girl/woman who carries the developing fetus has a choice.
Abortion has been a practice since the beginning of humankind. It has been done with herbal remedies, sticks, wires, various tools, implements, proceedures often practiced in the back alley by someone who doesn't know what he is doing, and using unsterile instruments...women and young girls performed their own abortions. Many women and girls were severely maimed and died from these practices that were not safe. That is why it was legalized....for the protection and safety of the woman/girl who WE KNOW is a person.....a person who has rights regarding how her body will be used.
Abortion is not ever going away, so those who want to continue to dominate, control and oppress women may as well get used to it, rather than continuing this fruitless argument.
Linda Taylor 50+
Do you think a fetus is a person?
Of course you don't have to answer but I am curious.
Frans Kellner 100+
Isn't one the expression of the other to represent life for any time being.
Linda Taylor 50+
No a fetus is not a person. I go into some detail with Ms. Gu on the history, philosophical underpinnings and legal definition of person and why a fetus is not a person. I discuss how in the US a person has rights under the constitution and how children and fetuses (feti?) have no rights and why. How the law in the US defines a person what it is what it is not and what it means.
In the US person has a legal definition and the common definition does not apply.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Person.aspx
Colleen Steen 500+
"Is a Fetus a Person?The debate over whether abortion should be considered as murder often focuses on the question of whether the fetus is a person or not".
I do not know for sure Linda. You have provided adequate substantiated information to show that a developing fetus is not considered a person by law. What I DO know, is the woman or young girl carrying the fetus in her body IS a person with rights.
Linda Taylor 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
I also defend the rights of women, and I am aware of the laws and definitions. That's why I said in my first comment..."This question and debate could go on and on, depending on what a person's particular perceptions and religious beliefs are....Abortion is not ever going away, so those who want to continue to dominate, control and oppress women may as well get used to it, rather than continuing this fruitless argument".
Abortion is going to be a continuing practice, as it has been since the beginning of humankind, whether or not it is legal. I prefer to see it a practice that is safe. No one has the right to dictate to another human being how her body will be used.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Here, in Korea, lots of women including children have been being raped by some devils as well. The youngest victim I've heard was 6yrs old. I cried when I heard a news. However often it may be, it is ‘extreme’, or should I use other word, ‘shocking’. Some people might not show any emotional support or sympathy to those raped victims, but to me, it is humiliating to the victims and indeed shocking—whether you agree with this part or not. One thing I agree with you is that children have rights. I think someone doesn't get what kind of right I'm talking about here. Children deserve to be respected and to be allowed to maintain their lives just like adults as they are all human beings with dignity. Just like your comment, neither do I care about whether women use their bodies whatever they want. Whether tattooing on her body, getting her hair cut, having sexual relationships with her boyfriend...
(Running out of characters....:) )
Colleen Steen 500+
I read all of your comments before I responded, which I usually do to get a feel for where you are coming from with comments.
I think you are getting my comments mixed up with Linda's...in your comment above. the statement..."lacks the capability to understand...." for example, is Linda's, not mine. So, I do not think I misunderstand you.
I did apparently misunderstand your use of the word "extreme", and now understand that you meant "shocking"....thanks for clarifying, and I agree. I also agree that all human beings have rights.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
That quote part here
"For that 8yrs young girl--as you say, who “lacks the capability to understand it”, adults have to help her make an appropriate decision, sometimes by legal force."
From "For" to "force" is from my comment and the sub-quote(so to speak) is from Ms(or Mrs)Taylor's. In previous comment to Ms(or Mrs)Taylor's, I mentioned "as you say" to her to contain her quote by using this "" by using quotation marks.
My response to your quote was: "Do we continue to abuse her rights by demanding that she carry a pregnancy to full term?" Why do we do that? I am not in the position of arguing 'veto' to abortion laws.
My reply there shows it.
You know, just so we’re clear. :) no worries.
Linda Taylor 50+
http://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_jayne_blakemore_the_mysterious_workings_of_the_adolescent_brain.html
Colleen Steen 500+
I did not perceive you to mix comments up intentionally. It looked like you were crediting me with something Linda said. It becomes confusing sometimes when we use quotes and sub-quotes, etc. Best to keep communications as clear and simple as possible. You advised me to pay more attention to your comments, which I think I do.
Just so we're clear...no worries:>)
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Are some people that selfish to give it a concern about value of a life? Are all our hopes ultimately dependent on ‘new technologies’ that would eventually solve this dilemma: While respecting women’s rights to decide to do, we can save fetuses via transplant or other methods?
(Again, cont: )
Colleen Steen 500+
I agree with you that many people perceive the issue as black and white, and fail to understand that there are many different factors considered when facing the challenging decision. That is why I am in favor of women having the right of choice, which the law protects and supports.
I agree that encouraging women to use contraception is a better choice, which is offered in women's clinics, family centers, medical facilities, etc., along with education. You are right...many women and young kids are not using birth control because they do not anticipate being raped.
I do not believe we should "force" women to carry a pregnancy to term...I believe that women have a choice, and that is what the law provides. The issue does not have to be divisive , and the only thing that makes it so, is people trying to impose THEIR beliefs on women. Women have the right to choose how their body will be used, and many women will choose abortion whether it is legal or not. I prefer to have the proceedure done in safe environments, with medical professionals, rather than in the many unsafe ways it was done in the past.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Thanks for your reply, Colleen :)
Always a pleasure.
Colleen Steen 500+
Thank you Elizabeth....always a pleasure for me as well:>)
Elizabeth Gu 30+
It’d almost sound like the broken record. And I guess that’s where the debate goes in vain, that is, “fruitless(from your quote)” ?
Regards, my friend.
P.S. Don't be surprised by the fact that my replies are quite long, whew~ :)
Colleen Steen 500+
Barry Palmer 50+
1. You can define "person" any way you want, the word is just a distraction from the important issues.
2. My wife believes abortion should be legal until the child reaches the age of 18. It would certainly help with discipline problems.
3. To me, the abortion issue is not so much about whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether the government has the right to decide that abortion is illegal. Outlawing abortion, even with exceptions, is an egregious intrusion on a woman's ability to decide matters about her personal health and the well being of her children. IMO, the government has no right to intrude in this very personal issue. Even if the fetus has some human rights, these rights come into direct conflict with the rights of the mother. This is a unique situation, and I do not believe it is possible to formulate a reasonable argument that the rights of the fetus should weigh more heavily than the rights of the mother. When there are health issues involved, whether the issues affect the woman or the fetus or both, the decision of whether or not to abort should be made by the woman, the potential father, and the doctor. Having the government involved in that decision in any way is just plain wrong. There are some doctors who are so afraid of the pro-life activists that they will not even discuss the option of abortion with their patients. That is wrong; it is bad medical practice.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Peter Law 30+
Elizabeth Gu 30+
"I don't care if she exercises her right to have a male child or to have her face lifted. She has rights."
You mention that I am walking in a grey area. For me, I think you're lying to yourself. What if your mom had decided not to save you(when you were a fetus) just because you were determined to be a female one? That’s totally your mom’s decision, right? But nonetheless, let’s suppose that you were unfortunately, born since your mom failed to have an abortion. Once you know this thing from someone you know when you became an adult, wouldn’t this fact be humiliating and infuriating to you? She disrespected your life. You could have been dead. Then, it may seem like people seemingly respect you now just because you’re a full grown-up, but they didn’t actually honor your fundamental value as a woman. Showing respect to people isn’t the only answer. We should also respect their value in essence from the moment on when they were very very young.
John Frum 30+
If my mom told me today that I was born because my mom failed to have an abortion, it would make absolutely no difference to me. My mom, like most other mature parents, would have raised me with no resentment for the fact that I was born. That brings me to the following question: there are many parents who are NOT mature. They intentionally or unintentionally get pregnant, and raise kids in a hell-hole. They could be drug addicts, or just too immature to nurture the child. The children, in most cases, grow up to be similar or worse -- robbers, thieves, etc. Do you think that out of respect to the lives of unborn (or yet to be born) robbers, thieves, wife-beaters, drug-addicts, we should prevent such people from ever having kids? By means including abortions, when they are already pregnant?
chen xin
Elizabeth Gu 30+
John Frum 30+
My point is this: You were saying that if your mom had aborted you, you wouldn't have been born. You apparently feel horrified at the thought of you never having been born. I can think of a billion other scenarios in which you would never have been born. Does each of those scenarios horrify you? My own example was one such scenario.
The fact that you are born and are here is an accident. That applies to all of us. Think of the billions of sperms that could have fertilized the egg that gave rise to you. Any other sperm, and it wouldn't have been you. Your mom's decision was equally a chance occurrence. "You", the "Elizabeth Gu" that you know yourself to be, were as irrelevant then as you were before your parents met. However, if someone had killed you AFTER you were born, they would have killed a human being that is living as a non-parasitic animal, that is capable of feeling pain, that probably has wishes for her own life, as desirous of wanting live as the person who chose to kill you.
Apparently you did not get my comment about preventing "unstable" people from having kids either. That was again, an example of the misuse of endless what-if-s. And in this series of what-if-s, such parents can be considered to be committing crimes against their future children.
Anyway, since you acknowledged the following "If you're fine with the fact that your mom failed to get rid of you(if she’d wanted to have an abortion), it's okay to me as well since it's up to you", I suppose you would also also acknowledge the fact that this is not universally "humiliating and infuriating", which was your question earlier. Does this affect your stance on the matter?
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Provided ‘the fact that a person is born and are here is an accident’, so, if a mom hate her fetus to be born with female gender, when her baby is born, the baby still has that gender she disliked. Some might not feel the same way as I expected, just like you. As people disagree with each other about some issues, there’s no such thing as ‘one certain reaction’. That’s why people raise questions to persuade or ask others to think about more. On what grounds are you saying this what-if-s is misused? What if scenario is not for teaching people some universalized definitions. That's why some say, "I don't care no matter what." And if a person whom I asked a question shows me this kind of indifferent reaction, then the following assumption would be, "Okay, he disagrees with me."
That's why I said it's fine with me. Should I blame him for disagreeing with me? I don't think so. I’m being respectful toward the people in opposition part for that matter as anyone should be.
John Frum 30+
I tend to ignore sexism (or racism or any other prejudices) because it doesn't affect me, even though I have been on the receiving end sometimes. Based on this, I take back my comment about endless what-if-s. I don't agree with what you are saying, but that's because I don't understand why people get hurt by prejudices.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Not everything is an extreme case. Think about it. Why do we need a law for it? Because there has been unanimous--or at least majority of--consent of whether some cases are extreme, therefore, should be excluded from being called "a violation of a law". Laws are also based on agreement. One’s own subjective thought doesn’t justify everything he does.
"They cannot sign a contract, they cannot make a will. Law and philosophy both acknowledge that a person is someone who can make decisions, in order to make decisions a person must have the capability of reason and agency. Some philosophers go into detailed lists like Ms. Warren. This is not something I am making up. It is how it really works."
Just because some philosopher insisted on having the capability of reason in order to be a person doesn't mean they are right all the time. And if it is how really works, in that case, there's no such thing as respecting human beings' ultimate rights. CHILDREN are also PERSONS. They have absolute rights. They need to be treated and taken care of by respect just like adults. If you(of course, you wouldn't do it) kill a child, that is a murder. It's definitely a crime. What adults do for children is to protect them and help their judgment by strongly involving in their social lives. Being vulnerable doesn’t mean a person has no right. As well as, being protected by someone doesn’t indicate that he doesn’t have a utter right. That's it. Children have potential to be smarter in the near future. They are only relatively small human beings.
Linda Taylor 50+
Children are not persons. In the US person is defined by law.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Person.aspx
You might think different but that is the way it is.
The reason person is defined by law has a long history in the United States. Mr. Grudzinsky posted earlier that the constitution states that "All men are created equal." You have to understand that at the time of the writing, they literally meant men. And 'men' did not include all human males. It had a specific definition. Men could own property including slaves and women. Other human beings.
Well people decided that it was not fair for some humans to own other humans (those philosophers you seem to detest) and they came up with the the concept of individual rational, self-determination. (see Kant, see enlightenment). This concept allows persons the ability to choose how to live and what to live for. It is the underlying principle to the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am going to call this the right to self-determination from here on. This caused a little fight in the US called the Civil War. At the end of that war, people of African decent were granted the right of self-determination.
Time goes on and women decide they do not like being property. They want the ability to sign contracts, own property, and so forth without a male relative saying they could or could not. So they want the right to self-determination too. This is problematic because the constitutions says "All men..." To address this conflict, the concept of "men as persons" is defined and outlined very specifically so that it could include women. At the present time, the concept of person is defined as a moral agent who is capable of reason and agency. You will find other words used but that is the short and dirty.
Running out of characters: cont.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
"I say an extreme case is what I say it is. You say it is what you say it is. There is no common agreement."
A pregnant woman "determines that an abortion is the least worst option available to her"--from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_over.htm
Just like your claim, women are entitled to deciding what to do.
However personal it may be, there are extreme situations where women inevitably choose to have abortions, which are legally justified. Your example of pregnant 8 year old girls is tacitly indicates that ‘that kind of horrible cases’ should be main part of the reasons why women are allowed to have abortions. You insist that in any cases, women can get rid of their fetuses as long as they want to. But I don’t frown when I think of a married, pregnant woman with good economic and mental capability to give birth to a baby and raise him with her supportive husband. And when I do frown is when people treat fetuses as if those are part of their hairs or cells. I also do frown when I think of those pregnant 8 year old girls with sympathy. You think it’s personal, and it’s true. But you said, “Easy to judge from the other side of a computer screen” while telling those pregnant little girls’ case to be persuasive, and to make sense. You implicitly tell me “that would be horrible”. I have to say, the quote: “No I do not know what an extreme case is. How in the world am I supposed to know what you mean? Magic?” from your reply shows you’re overreacting to my former reply. If you understand what I’m explaining now, you’d also realize we both, in some part, agree that prohibiting abortions for 8 year old, pregnant girls is cruel and even wrong, which both make us ‘frown’.
(cont.)
Elizabeth Gu 30+
As I told you before, If a woman has an abortion just because of the fetus’s gender(which turns out to be female), it’s discriminating gender based on gender bias, which I call, “a sexist attitude”.
Removing a female fetus with a possibility that if it’d been a male one, its mom would have saved it is totally different from throwing away a chocolate flavor ice cream in a garbage bean with a possibility that if it’d been a strawberry one, you wouldn’t have thrown away, but instead you would have eaten it.
Fetuses aren’t ice creams, certainly, fetuses are much more worthier. When it comes to abortion issue, people debate with each one’s sincere opinions, and with the concept of “value of a life” or “respecting choices”. People don’t condemn a person who chooses not to eat chocolate ice creams and thrown them away(some might…out of concern that it’s a waste of your money, lol, anyway).
Fetuses are worthy of living and we should cherish their lives with promising future as long as we can.
For the record, I didn’t say that I reject pro-choice position entirely even though personally, I want to find a way to preserve fetuses’ lives. Or rather, I want to evoke our inner fear that ignoring each fetus’s worth could be fundamentally threatening to human beings’ rights to be allowed to live(Not that kind of right you declare). It’s quite difficult to support both sides of view, indeed (cont.)
Elizabeth Gu 30+
In Korea, there’s one of famous gag show programs called “불편한 진실”(An uncomfortable truth). Its name is pretty well reflecting this issue as well. To what stretch of rights should we respect and recognize? What’s well said on the site I mentioned earlier is, “Most of what the media imply are wrong: there is no single pro-life position and no single pro-choice position…(ellipsis)….Some distort data; others ignore information that contradicts their views.”
You mentioned I seemed to detest those philosophers, but I don’t. I said they aren’t right all the time. Detesting someone and being objective toward someone is different. I highly respect the concept of maximizing happiness from Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy, but I respect more Kantians’ philosophy, which reject Bentham’s idea on the grounds that utilitarianism is dependent on variable contingency, that is, maximizing majority’s welfare can’t be the basis of morality. Kant thought all people are worthy of respect because they are rational beings, namely, they are able to reason and act autonomously according to moral laws people give themselves. However, although I agree with his philosophy in some part, I don’t have to be fond of all his basic logic behind. I believe children are persons with rights. I appreciate the link you posted there(Had a pleasure to read the definitions).In Korea, minors aren’t also allowed to vote for president election since they aren’t regarded to be able to make proper decisions in participating in politics. Although that’s legitimate, that doesn’t mean children essentially don’t have rights. We are able to limit the extent of their rights by preventing them from wielding their power in specific fields(adults’ field so to speak), but we can’t undermine their fundamental human rights. cont
Elizabeth Gu 30+
I’m not disagreeing with you about whether it’s legally appropriate to have abortions. That’s not even the question in this conversation. I disagree with you on the fundamentally different grounds. And if you think having abortions is legal and fine, then, it’s also fine with me. I respect your thought. What I disagree is your definition of persons(even if legally correct in your state), which ignores children’s rights. And the other reason is for valuing those little human life forms.
You frequently insist, that’s how it works. Legal definitions aren’t definite. We can change them if it need be. Besides, even aside from this issue, some laws should no longer exist or at least changed provided that it’s not regarded ‘right’.
A fetus is a person? Not yet, but a potential human life. Many people including lawyers have come to conclusion that since they aren’t persons yet, they can’t speak for themselves; therefore, can’t protect their rights by themselves. So, we shouldn’t talk about how important it is to preserve their lives? No! ‘Cause not end of the story yet!
This kind of sensitive issues are usually turns out to be two, divisive arguments. But unlike the way people used to deal with this issue, I hate the things turn out to be merely pro-life versus pro choice. And when people pick a side, many of them never consider the whole view of the opposition part. That's the problem.
Linda Taylor 50+
I wish I could just download what I know but I will give it a try.
You have to understand that when you are helping a pregnant 8 year old child, the child usually WANTS the baby. They are not mature enough to understand the ramifications of keeping the baby. They think of it as some animated doll.
So now what do we do? You are all about advocating children's rights. Us ignorant adults should just let her keep it right? She has a high chance of doing real harm to her and the baby's health and lacks the emotional and maturational ability to deal with a baby let alone a child. She does not know this and lacks the capability to understand it even if I teach and rationalize until I am blue in the face. She does not even understand how the baby got there but she can't wait to play with it.
Children are not granted rights under the law for a reason.
In that situation the parents of the 8 year old make a decision with the medical providers or the court can assign an agent to speak for the child and come to a decision in the best interest of the child.
Children lack both reason and agency which is why they do not have rights under the constitution.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
Children DO have rights, and the act of abusing a child is indeed inhumane. Perhaps that is why Linda mentioned the 8 year old pregnant girl? She is a child. The youngest pregnant girl I have interacted with was 10.....she is a child whose rights were abused. Do we continue to abuse her rights by demanding that she carry a pregnancy to full term?
Whether or not one believes that a developing fetus is a person, we KNOW that the woman or young girl carrying the fetus is a person, sometimes, a child, not fully developed herself.
You write in another comment Elizabeth that being raped is extreme. It is not extreme at all my friend. Unfortunately, it is very common. Have you ever seen what delivering a baby can do to an 8-10 year old little body that is not yet even developed? Some people, because of their beliefs, demand that the child carry a pregnancy to term. Whose rights are violated?
In the US, there are laws to protect the rights of women and children. When we work with women and children who are abused, as I did volunteering in the shelter, and as Linda apparently does, we know the laws, and that is the information we use to help protect the rights of women and children. We support them in making their own decisions, based on what is available to them by law. Supporting women and children's rights is the priority, and my personal opinions do not matter. I believe that is where Linda is coming from?
It is none of my business what a woman CHOOSES to do with her body, just like it is none of the business of those who believe they know better than her how to orchestrate her life based on THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS. It IS very much my business to help protect the rights by law, of women and children. It is my business when a person or persons FORCE women and children to do something that deprives them of their basic human rights, which are protected by law....at least in some places in our world.
Linda Taylor 50+
But currently the US will not even recognize the children's rights as outlined by the UN.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/24/why-is-the-us-against-childrens-rights/
Children's rights are not clear in the US and there are many reasons for this including the underlying value of family.
Linda Taylor 50+
Think about when we remove this right. You loose the right to self-determination when you participate in illegal activities. You get sent to jail. If the government feels your race is a threat to national security and the welfare of the state and citizenry, they can make you go to an internment camp or a reservation. If the government needs your life to protect the welfare of the state and the citizenry, they can initiate a draft. If the government feels labor is more important than your right to happiness, they can institute or condone slavery.
All those are examples of what happens when we remove the right to self-determination because the rights of others are more important.
As a moral agent capable of reason and agency, women can choose whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy. It is integral to that pursuit of happiness part. The conflict comes with the whole pursuit of life part. What about the fetus? Doesn't it deserve life too?
Well the problem is that at the present moment, you need to remove the right of self-determination from the woman and apply it to the fetus. The woman cannot choose because the rights of the fetus is more important.
That means that women are back to being property of the government. Just like slaves, draftees, prisoners. They are simply the vessel for the fetus which the government states has more rights, even though it is not a person, has no reason and no agency.
Running out of characters again, cont:
Linda Taylor 50+
I wish we could have both the right of self-determination for women and the right of life for the fetus. Perhaps some day in the future we can remove the fetus and transplant it into a male or female volunteer. But we can't do that yet.
You have to wrap your brain around how important this issue is whether or not you agree with abortion. If you truly believe the right to life of the fetus is more important than the right to self-determination of the woman then that is OK with me. If you truly feel that the government should remove the right of self determination from the woman as it does with prisoners and draftees, then we just need to disagree.
To me abortion is a choice that a woman makes between her and her God and her family. Only she can determine if it is right or wrong. She is a moral agent and can make decisions. Not the government.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
You might argue that women "deserve" this right, because they are capable of making decisions, and the fetus is not (likewise, mentally ill and infants). However, under the definition you quoted, minors are not persons either. Why is it illegal for a woman to kill her infant child incapable of verbal communication or signing agreements, because it interferes with "her right to self-determination and pursuit of happiness"? If a mother does it or deliberately injures a child she will be promptly stripped of her right to self-determination and sent to jail.
Isn't there an inconsistency? I realized the controversy when I heard on the radio a story of a woman narrated by herself whose mother attempted abortion in late stages of pregnancy. She was scalded in the womb with some chemical. I believe, this method is illegal now. But when the "doctor" extracted her from the womb, she was still alive. The very people who tried to kill her in the womb, immediately started to "fight for her life". What kind of logic can explain this behavior?
I still support the right of the woman to choose based on a mixture of emotion, reason, and philosophy. However, I believe, each right comes with responsibility to make right choices. I do trust that mothers are the best agents to decide for their children. But the more I listen to rational arguments on both sides, the more I realize that they go nowhere.
Linda Taylor 50+
I know this is confusing but I will try and tie it all together. I posted further down about the controversy of when life begins. People have all kinds of different definitions.
According to the law, life begins when you are born. You become a human being when you are born, not before. You can argue viability and some the law will support that definition, but overall the US law is when you are born. So not only is a fetus not a person, it is not considered life. It is not a human being. (I really don't want to debate the details here. It is just law and that is how it is). So you have to be a human being in order to be murdered. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
Once you are born the law considers you an infant. This is different than the medical and common definition. So in the US, an infant is any human before it is a person. So an infant is legally anyone under the age of 21. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infancy.
We would commonly call an infant a minor.
So, a woman cannot murder a fetus because it is not alive. It is not viable and cannot live with out the mother. It is in essence a parasite. It is not a human being because it has not achieved being status. You are not your own being until you are separated from another being.
Once the fetus is born it becomes an infant. It will remain an infant according to the legal definition until it turns 21 and becomes a person.
An infant is alive. A viable life. A human being. Living on its own outside the mother. While it is not yet a person, it is still a human being and that means that if the mother or anyone else kills an infant/child, they kill a human being. The murderer gives up their right to self determination and goes to jail.
Emotionally, I would agree with Mr. Palmer's wife above :)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Are they the same in terms that are important for this sort of decision.
Myself, I see it as a tension between the woman and her fetus. But they are not equal. One is conscious. One has the potential to be.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
If Bible is any authority for you, read 1 Corinthians 13, read the book of Job on what to say to a person in agony. Think, why God planted the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden or why Jesus did not kill all sinners (those seem like very pro-choice decisions).
Sorry for an emotional post...
edward long 100+
In addition to this federal law (aka: Laci and Connors Law), 35 states in the U.S. have fetal homocide laws recognizing the unborn as persons. Of course there is the 5th and the 14th Constitutional Amendment which guarantee equal protection to every American but do not, no matter how obviously intended, contain the specific words "fetus" or "unborn." These all support the fetus as a person.
Linda Taylor 50+
Only if the violence is against the woman carrying the fetus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
You can't harm a fetus unless you harm the mother. Because it is the mother that has the rights. The fetal rights are violated ONLY if the mothers rights are violated. Fetuses are NOT PERSONS.
You can only convict on fetal homicide if the fetus died as a result of illegal activity. The only way to bypass the rights of the mother is if she looses them through legal means and that includes participating in illegal activity. The fetal homicide laws are being applied to women who loose their babies due to an addiction. That's what they were designed for. How great is that? So now they are charged with homicide in addition to loosing a baby. Maybe some of them actually wanted to carry the pregnancy.
Go ahead Mr. Long. Do some more research.
The woman has the rights because she is a person.
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
I am passionate about the right to self-determination and I apologize if it slanted my posting in any way.
I truly truly believe when we give up that right we are in deep doo doo. It makes women someone's property. I don't want that to happen.
Once again fetuses have no rights and you cannot take rights away from the mother unless she gives them up.
I do not care about abortion.
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
And don't confuse women's rights with this issue. It really is about self-determination and gender really does not matter.
I don't care about how much money women make or what is commonly termed women's rights.
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
........................Pro Choice...................Pro Life...................???
Men.................. Has rights..................Has rights..............Has rights
Women............. Has rights..................NO rights...............Has rights
Fetus..................NO rights ..................Has rights.............Has rights
By rights I am talking about self-determination here. Since a fetus has no self this is where a lot of the confusion comes in.
So in the pro choice scenario, the woman has rights but the fetus does not. The pro life scenario has women with no rights but the fetus has rights.
What is the scenario where all three have rights? That is where we need to go.
But if the only options are pro life/pro choice, the woman wins hands down. And our current system in the United States supports this legally.
Perhaps some day we will have the technology to support the third option.
Margo Kirkpatrick
edward long 100+
1) Males are only ones who have rights in all three scenarios. This is often moot because in an abortion of convenience resulting from casual sex the dude could not care less. He has moved-on to the next "challenge".
2) Pro-Lifers believe mothers-to-be have no rights. I am pro-life and I believe the mother-to-be has rights. Maybe I, and those like me, belong in that third category?
3) Our society depends heavily on labels and the third category has no label. Maybe it should be called "Pro Equality"? Thank you!
Linda Taylor 50+
Ken brown 30+
Linda Taylor 50+
Easy to judge from the other side of a computer screen.
Ken brown 30+
Elizabeth Gu 30+
But what I don't get is....How can you be sympathized with those girls while arguing that children are also don't have rights just like fetuses, thus, their lives can't be prioritized over adults'.
According to your argument against my former comments below, children are also not persons.
Is this caring same as the caring for animals?
Or in this case, are you truly caring about those girl as PERSONS?
I really want to know.
What is the basis of your logic..?
Abortion should be allowed for that kind of extreme cases.
You said, "Who gets to decide what an extreme case is?"
Now you unconscioudly give me an example.
At least intuitively, you do know what is an extreme case judging by your reply here.
Linda Taylor 50+
In the US children are not persons and are not granted rights under the constitution.
Pregnant minors are dealt with differently in each state. Each state outlines rights and procedures that the minor needs to follow. It is not a constitutional issue it is a state issue so all are a little different based on the values and moraes of each state. Or at least the state legislators.
Pregnant minor rights are similar to emancipated minor rights but there are some differences.
Typically a minor can be emancipated as young as 14 to 16. As minors much younger can get pregnant, there are special circumstances surrounding the pregnant minor definition.
But unless a child falls under the pregnant minor or the emancipated minor rulings in each state, they do not have any rights due to this thing called disability of nonage.
An emancipated minor means they have legally removed the disability of nonage. But that does not mean that the minor has all the rights an adult does. For instance, they still cannot drink alcohol until they reach legal age.
That disability is removed once a child reaches the age of 21 and is considered a person under the US constitution. I do not know how to be any clearer. Children are not persons and have no rights. No one is going to grant a 10 year old the right to bear arms or a 9 year old the right to vote.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
We all need to develop our capacity for reasoning, ability to feel pain, and capacity to communicate to stop killing each other.
John Smith 30+
Linda Taylor 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Are you saying a woman has no reproductive rights.
Are you saying once a woman is pregnant she has no say at all.
You can not frame an argument about pregnancy and ignore the mother.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
God or evolution, when a mother feels safe, calm, happy, secure, comfortable, supported, etc., she will always make the right decision. Fear, anger, pressure, anxiety, threats, despair, feeling abused, insecure, etc. is the problem. The solution to the problem is purely emotional, not logical, not political, not religious - a little kindness to each other, and we will do just fine :-).
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
It all comes down to love. When love is present, the question of rights does not even come up. All this stuff comes up when love is overshadowed by the other things I mentioned. It all comes down to the woman's emotional and physical well-being. I think, this is the only issue to focus on. The other issues don't really matter.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Imagine, I lose a dollar and I'm upset about it. It makes me sad, frustrated, etc... I could have invested it and gained $1000. Does it mean that I lost $1000? No. I lost a dollar. Does it mean that I should not be sad or upset about losing a dollar? What does my emotional reaction have to do with potential?
Why do we need to rationalize our emotions? Why do we need to misrepresent reality?
Linda Taylor 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
It's an emotional belief without factual evidence. This is a great example how beliefs without evidence shape our reality.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
No you are mistaken. That is not the natural sequence of events. It is simply one of many possible outcomes. You are over generalizing.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
So, yes, if it is within our power we should let fetuses live.
Linda Taylor 50+
Why is that so hard? The PERSON with RIGHTS gets to decide!
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
To Linda: Persons with rights always decide the fate of people without rights. And what about the rights of the unborn women that I mentioned before? I have not seen a rational argument on this issue that does not collapse under its own weight.
But I agree with you. The woman must decide. Not based on any logic, not based on any "rights", not based on anyone's opinion, but based on her own emotional feelings. Women who make these decisions are under huge emotional pressure. Nobody makes these decisions easily. We don't want to add a pressure of going to jail to other decision factors. I talk about emotional feelings towards the fetus, not feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or despair. The job of others - family, church, society, etc. is to offer material and emotional support and reassurance, not judgment, condemnation, and threats of jail and hell.
John Frum 30+
"a fetus, if not aborted, would naturally grow to be born, and then grow to adulthood."
That is completely wrong. Reference: http://www.pregnancycharts.org/miscarriage.php
If you do the math, you'll see that only about 18.4% of all conceptions lead to a successful delivery. Again, doing the math, 81.6% of the fetuses lead to a successful delivery.
edward long 100+
It is not the intent of the procedure to interfere with the natural and normal development of the implanted zygotes so there is not intentional infringement on the the rights of those living beings. I assume your question is hypothetical since there is no law against killing unborn babies so why would they be charged with anything? Thank you!
edward long 100+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Unique/non-unique; actual/potential; certain/probable.
I share your sentiment regarding abortion, but, let's face it: it's a sentiment. Reason will not take us far on this issue.
edward long 100+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
A bunch of dividing cells does not a human make. I use the analogy of cancer further down. Cancer is also a bunch of rapidly dividing human cells.
Andres Aullet 10+
Sorry i must stick my nose here... If a fertilized human egg's certain outcome was a human being, then i would say that natural miscarriages (an involuntary type of abortion) would also be against this "certain" outcome...
Life is precious, I am with you on that... but in terms of the life that ends between the moment of an egg fertilization and a concrete human being, nature (or god, or whomever) takes more lives than humans do
edward long 100+
Andres Aullet 10+
Yes, i think so, i checked it a couple years back, but i can look up statistics if you are interested... seems like "natural" miscarriages (yes i am careful with the term natural here too) are more than double the number of human induced abortions
My definition of a concrete human being is way beyond the point of controversy, 4 or 5 year old i guess... i stretched that far out to include those natural deaths in infants that are largely absent in these kinds of debates... Pro-life must mean pro-life at all ages, not just before birth, right?
cheers
Peter Law 30+
:-(
Obey No1kinobe 50+
So much lost potential. So much trauma for women who have to make these choices and live with the results.
sounds like the US needs some serious sex education and contraception programmes.
I heard the Christian right support abstinence only which does not work as well as programmes that include contraception at preventing unwanted unplanned pregnancies.
Peter Law 30+
The whole thing is a mess. Abstinence is not for everyone, but on a personal note; my wife is the only woman I have had sex with, & the same for her. This had nothing to do with Christianity as it was more than 20 years later before we were saved. This used to be the norm & it provides a solid foundation for nurturing children.
Today most of my close friends are women, & too often I help them get through male-induced trauma. Many of today's men are a disgrace to their gender & mostly responsible for the abortion issue. The shame is that it is the unborn innocents who are paying the price for our 'freedom'.
:-(
edward long 100+
EDIT-- Mr. Law (thank you) offers U.S.A. statistics that 33 out of a 100 pregnancies end in miscarriage; of the remaining 67 pregnancies 16 end with abortion; only 51 out of 100 reported pregnancies end with live delivery.
John Frum 30+
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/qt/miscarriage-rates.htm
"With one past miscarriage, the odds of miscarrying in your next pregnancy are about 20% (not much higher than someone without a history of miscarriage). With two previous miscarriages, the risk of another miscarriage is 28%, and with three previous miscarriages the risk increases to 43%. It's possible that having testing for recurrent miscarriage causes might help in these cases."
In people with Polycystic ovary syndrome, the rate of miscarriage is 30-50%. Should we force them to never get pregnant, and jail them if they do? Metformin lowers the rate of miscarriage in such people, but carries its own safety risks. Should we force women with PCOS to use metformin anyway?
So, if a woman gets pregnant after 3 miscarriages, should she be tried for endangering a life? What if she loses the 4th pregnancy too? Should she be tried for murder?
peter lindsay 30+
edward long 100+
peter lindsay 30+
edward long 100+
chen xin
it can be ture that 1 in 7 children do not know if they will have food that night and 1 in 4 children are in government subsidized school lunch programs because parents cannot afford to feed their children
according to my study that you people each can earn about 30000$ per year.how can that be ture
is there a high price of goods .if so . i think i am luckier than your people .
i read some news it says that every family have about two cars on average .isnt that ture .
Peter Law 30+
Most comments seem centred around whether a fetus is a person or not. We have very short memories. In the recent past coloured people, like yourself, Jews, Aborigines, Gypsies, homosexuals, and any other race not like someone's idea of a human should be have been classed as sub-human & subjected to abuse & death.
We need to take on board the fact that we are all humans together & care for one another. We need to do this from conception to natural death. If we don't then we are making a serious mistake. There will always be cases where the baby dies to save the mum; & cases where mum dies to save the baby. We cannot however go on taking innocent lives just because some boffin, or pressure group, says it's ok. It's not!
:-(
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Gail . 50+
Is it really more ethical to bring a child into the world to face unimaginable hardships than to protect a potential child from having to face them?
With the expansion of global warming, exponential population growth, poor farming methods that causes loss of arable land, pollution of aquifers, and economic distress (to name only a few causes), hunger and malnutrition is a growing problem, even in so called "wealthy" countries like the USA. Even here, 1 in 7 children do not know if they will have food that night and 1 in 4 children are in government subsidized school lunch programs because parents cannot afford to feed their children.
So, my position is that if your god thinks that abortion is bad, then you should either produce your god and have "Him" tell me, or you should be giving all your money to those who don't know where their next meal is coming from. To require a child to be born into an inhospitable world where a horrible death is almost a certainty is moral how?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
A fertilised egg is not a person. It may have the potential to be one.
I'm not sure at what point a developing human becomes a person. It's probably a gradual thing.
Just like the transition from child to adult.
Linda Taylor 50+
That is the age when humans are granted rights in the United States.
Note I said most...
Obey No1kinobe 50+
In realiy individuals do not suddenly change on their birthday.
So these issues are complex.
Inless you believe a fertilised egg is a person then there is a continuum.
We can identify and distinguish the exremes. But there is a transition period from a clump of cells to a little person who can feel and suffer and fonally reason.
Abortion or micarriage is isually a sad afair. My point is we should try and differentiate between life cycle stages while acknowleding it is a continuum not binary.
Thanks.
Linda Taylor 50+
And yes you do become a person on your birthday:)
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Person.aspx
Gail . 50+
What is worse? To eliminate an unwanted parasite in a woman's body under anesthesia, or to bring an unwanted child into the world, where it will die a cruel death or meet a cruel fate?
I do not conflate infanticide with abortion. A fetus is not an infant. It's a potential infant.
chen xin
when i think of it that people have artificial abortion operation.i am hair-raising.it is a life.we should not kill it .we should have respsibility for it . i hate it very much .
Linda Taylor 50+
Nobody is thinking, "Oh the poor embryo, you have to implant it because some day it could become a person... Those cells in the petrie dish have rights."
No, they only say that when a woman is involved.
Wake up and smell the coffee. You have to understand what this is really about.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
However in reality there are unwanted pregnancie or medical consideratins that put the womans life at risk.
I also note in some religions it is a sin to use contraception.
I agree in some cases people should take more responsibility. But in others if you are raped or have no access to contraception it is not so easy.
So abotion is not great. But you also need to respect the rights of the women. It is their body and life too. It is a difficult balancing act.