When does "life" begin?

[raedyn]

I'm also pretty bothered by the concept of a "good enough" reason to have an abortion.

A woman does not have to justify her reasons for having an abortion - or for not having one. It's her choice to make. It's her business why, not anyone else's.

Compare to another health crisis. Say you were diagnosed with cancer. You would have a range of options from ignoring the cancer and letting nature take its course right through to agressive surgery and chemotherapy and radiation. The patient is the one who gets to make the choice. Sure, they consult their doctor for advice, and ask what their family thinks. But in the end, it's the patient who must live through the consequences of their choice, and it's the patient who gets to make the choice. No one asks a cancer patient to justify themselves. It a very difficult and personal desicion that will change their life forever. And it's their choice to make, none of your business why.

 

[evenflow1121]

I respectfully disagree, in my opinion it is not always a woman's right to choose. I believe it is a woman's right to choose if the woman was raped, if her partner has abandoned her, or some other tragic incident. If the father wants the baby and the sex was consentual I no longer see it that way, as it does take two to tango.

 

[Ray]

I'd like to know if the question of defining "when life begins" only has meaning when applied to the debate on abortion? When first reading the question, abortion didn't even come to my mind. Several posts have been about abortion.

Why, in relation to abortion law, does it matter when life begins?

 

[rmcrobertson]

But why can't you trust women to think all that through, and make a wise choice?

 

[Ray]

But why can't you trust women to think all that through, and make a wise choice?

Who says I can't? And what do you think about my previous question?

Thanks.

 

[arnisador]

historically speaking, the fetus was apparently not considered viable until it began to, "quicken," to kick, that is, in a way that could be felt

This is my understanding of the Western tradition.

Most of the fussbudgeting is modern, and appeared--surprise, surprise!--about the time that a) capitalism needed more bodies

I remember watching in horror one day as a woman giving a speech to a group of senior citizens, broadcast on C-SPAN, explained that they should all oppose abortion because if they didn't, who would pay for their social security? She proceeded with a detailed economic argument--this many abortions, this much salary lost per aborted fetus per year, what percentage would go into FICA payments, how that would translate into cash in their monthly checks...I was stunned to see it laid out so baldly.

about the time that [...] women began to be, 'a problem.'

Make your own joke here.

why don't you trust women to think the matter through, and make the right decision for themselves?

I agree, but in fairness, if one believes it's alife, it's the father's child as well. But, I see no way to resolve that--it's the woman's body. That idea must rule when all is said and done, to my mind.

 

[arnisador]

But why can't you trust women to think all that through, and make a wise choice?

People make bad choices all the time. This argument doesn't impress me. Letting her make her own choice, though...that I agree with. I see the argument that it's the father's potential child also and he should have a say, and in a world of ideal biology that could be so. As is--and here raedyn makes a very good point about both the temporary and permanent effects of pregnancy (a point with which my wife would surely agree)--it's happening in and to the woman's body, and so her health and life are what's affected. It has to be her choice.

Certainly, the doctrine of being able to control one's own fate has long been applied to men, hasn't it?

 

[heretic888]

Perhaps "life" isn't the best term to be tossing around here...

"Life", per se, begins with single-celled organisms capable of reacting with external stimuli and reproducing themselves in some fashion or another. As such, we destroy "life" all the time and make no big hubbub about it. Nor should we, since we're talking about organisms that have less sentience than an amoeba.

It seems to me, rather, that people are tossing around ideas like "humanity" or "sentience" or "consciousness". That's a whole 'nudder thing from "life".

So, really, what is it we're actually debating about here, guys?? :idunno:

 

[Kane]

This isn't about a fetus; it's about the Preservation of the Almighty Sperm. This isn't about trimesters; it's about men's control of women. So let's ask the REAL question--why don't you trust women to think the matter through, and make the right decision for themselves?

Do you think all men would make the right decision of they were put in the same position as women are in? Some would, some wouldn't. It isn't about controlling a woman, that is the biggest radical liberal argument I have heard. No man today wants to "reclaim" control of women or whatever. Before you ask whether people who are against partial birth abortion think that women can't make the decision, ask yourself this: Are you not being sexist by assuming men are purposely trying to be oppressive? Are you calling people like me who think abortion after a trimester becomes murder to a human life are oppressive. Why do you cont. to use that old argument from the early 20th century that "men are trying to oppress women and think they can't make the right choice".

Also, if this were all about men to gain control over women then why so many women in America are opposed to abortion? Are they asking men to oppress them? I mean if every single woman in America were pro-choice, do you really think abortion would be a big deal? It would most likely be legal. I know so many women who are against abortion, my mother is a perfect example.

 

[Tgace]

I was just thinking about how nice and convienent my life would be if I could eliminate every person (pre or post birth) that inconvienced me in any way....

 

[shesulsa]

I was just thinking about how nice and convienent my life would be if I could eliminate every person (pre or post birth) that inconvienced me in any way....

Would it Tom? I'm sure your parents inconvenienced you in MANY ways - expecially growing up. Would eliminating them have been 'convenient'? You're an LEO - have you ever had to elminate a perp who you felt sorry for?

I'm sick and tired of the assumption by various persons that most women who get abortions think "it is no more than having a mole removed." Don those moccasins and walk that mile. And if it's a physical impossibility for the person then shut up.

... and I still think that if we're going to protect life then male masturbation must be outlawed. Sperm must be preserved - they move, they are alive and there are exponentially more sperm that die unnecessarily than human zygotes, embryos and fetuses. ELIMINATE NONOXYNOL-9!!!!!:mp5:

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. It matters in abortion law because of what I already mentioned: continuing the tradition of permitting unrestricted abortion up to the point that the embryo becomes a living creature. It also matters because of the Supreme Court (whose Chief Justice was Republican-appointed, incidentally) compromise on deciding the legality of abortion in terms of trimesters: first tri, definitely not really a human life, no restrictions; second tri, maybe/maybe not, some restrictions, third tri probably, more restrictions.

2. OK, women make bad choices too. Gee, you think? This has nothing to do with legality or Constitutionality--neither the law nor the Constitution guarantees you will exercise your freedom wisely, they JUST SAY THAT YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF, particularly about things that boil down to religious and moral ideas and decisions. It's the derndest thing--men must be free to own guns, run their companies irresponsibly, rip up the countryside, etc., all that's a person's rights--but boy, let some woman use a "morning after," pill or consider terminating a pregnancy, and oh my GOD, we can't let these decisions be made by mere individuals. Looks to me like PEOPLE'S (i.e. men's) rights are involable, but on the other hand, WOMEN gotta be watched.

And yes, I just said that the ideological structure employed by some is that men are people, and women are not. Le deuxieme sexe, dontcha know.

3. Kane. a) Nice try on the old, "Women's rights means the oppression of men," spiel. Sorry, no cigar...though of course in this case, a cigar is not just a cigar. b) I'd probably say something about the internalization of patriarchal ideology on the part of women, but wotthehell. c) The point, ace, is that women are free to MAKE THEIR OWN DAMN CHOICES, not to," choose abortion," (which you fantasize is what I demand), or to, "choose life," (which is what you demand). d) I'm not even gonna try and disentangle the ideological spaghetti in those last couple of sentences.

The point is--women choose, each and every one. Men shut up and support their choices as best they can, starting with butting out of them if they're not wanted. Why do you want to go snooping into other people's lives this way?

d) That's funny. I was just thinking how much more convenient MY life would be if everybody were forced by government, law, cops and churches to think and behave exactly as I want them to.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Or-


Every Sperm is Sacred



From: The Meaning Of Life
by the Monty Python Team

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

 

[Tgace]

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm

Thus, the Court actually did take sides on when life begins. It concluded that the fetus is not a human person, for the procedure permitted in Roe, abortion, is something that the Court itself admits it would not have ruled a fundamental right if it were shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the fetus is a human person: "If the suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment]."7

But this conditional concession cuts both ways. For if, as Blackmun admits, the right to abortion is contingent upon the status of the fetus, then the allegedly disputed fact about life's beginning means that the right to abortion is disputed as well. For a conclusion's support--in this case, "abortion is a fundamental right"-- is only as good as the truth of its most important premise--in this case, "the fetus is not a human person." So, the Court's admission that abortion-rights is based on a widely disputed fact, far from establishing a right to abortion, entails that it, not only does not know when life begins, but it does not know when, if ever, the right to abortion begins.8

My only "beef" with the topic is that the whole issue of if the unborn are "people" is conveniently ignored, because its such a difficult one. So it turns into a debate over "convince", or who controls what/who. Of course taking the stance of being concerned for human life, or at least wanting to discuss when a person is a person turns into "you are just a man trying to control me" (ignoring pro-life women or turning them into men repressed pawns).

 

[Tgace]

If a man punches a full term woman in the stomach and kills the "fetus" is it homicide or assault?

http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fetalhomicide_ctv.html
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Good try at distraction--bringing up men's violence against women, as a way of trying to divert the discussion from the question of why men should be telling women what to do all the time.

2. Nobody tried to drop the whole "personhood," issue, though it's largely bogus. (See Barbara Johnson, "Apostrophe, Animation and Abortion") Some of us tried to point out that such issues are best decided by individuals, not by outsiders, by liberals, not by left-wingers, not by the State, and not by right-wing religious fanatics.

3. So it doesn't bother some of you folks that essentially you are arguing for the same approaches to women's independence and self-determination that characterized the Taliban?

 

[Kane]

Sure Rmcrobertson. You sound so much like a radical liberal.. You keep going back to your stale arguments. You think every non-liberal man is a oppressive man that wants to "put women in their place" and what not.

You have a particular obsession in proving that Christians, catholics in particular, are evil oppressive monsters. You whine and complain that the catholic church is trying to take over the government. Well if that were the case I guess people like me who are not catholic should be very afraid. Considering I am not white either, I should fear the oppression of the white man as well.

By the way, do you think only men are the ones who are against abortion and arguing against it? If you think this you really know little.

No offense or anything, but you need to come up with better arguments than men are trying to oppress women who are against partial birth abortion. I dare you to find an article by a man who is against partial birth abortion that says he is against partial birth abortion because he wants to oppress women.

 

[Tgace]

The typical "easy explanation" answer. Its easier to blame a differing opinion on "catch phrase" explanations then it is to confront the complexities of peoples varying reasons for their stance. Hmmm..much like many persons rejection of the simple "war on terrorism" rationale for various government actions...whats good for the goose....

 

[arnisador]

2. OK, women make bad choices too. Gee, you think? This has nothing to do with legality or Constitutionality--neither the law nor the Constitution guarantees you will exercise your freedom wisely

Don't try to hold me responsible for your point. You are the one who said they would choose wisely.

But, the Monty Python song is very much on point!

 

[Ray]

But anyway, you believe that life begins when the court says so? or you belief that it begins when science says so? Do you have a well thought out opinion of your own?

And really, does the question of "when life begins" only matter when we're talking about abortion?

So far it seems too. Why? Probably because we can define a fetus as not "human life" and it's easier to stomach abortion? I don't think it matters when life begins in the abortion debate since society can decide what is do-able and what isn't. courts have decided that tomatoes are legally vegetables, while science says they're fruits.

I'm more interested in when life begins. Any ideas?