Abortion: The Facts

If you crush an acorn. Did you just chop down a tree?

But regardless of all the legal blather. Here is my take on it.


Weather the fetus is a human or not doesnt really matter. The fact remains that it requires a parasitic relationship with the host ( the woman in this case ) in order to develop into a fully formed human capable of living on its own.

The question is simply this to me. Does a woman have the right to not allow that relationship?

IMO, yes, since the womb IS hers. It does NOT belong to the fetus / child. It really is that simple to me. A woman should have the right to not be FORCED to give birth if she chooses not to, nor to be required to allow her body to be used in a parasitic relationship if she does not wish it to be.

 

It is often hard to address the issue of abortion with anti-abortionists, especially when they use terms such as "murder" which is established under a legal definition, as they often lack any real knowledge related to the law. Much of what is presented by the "anti-abortionists" was reviewed by the US Supreme Court in it's Roe v Wade decision which "anti-abortionists" are deathly afraid of referring to because it contradicts their opinions which are not founded upon either history of the law.

In Roe v Wade the SCOTUS addressed the historical foundations for the laws related to abortion which included the how, historically, it was viewed. The SCOTUS does refer to the "quickening" of a "quick" fetus as that was often used in the laws and that refers to when the fetus becomes animated (i.e. moving within the woman's body). Here is one relevant quotation from Roe v Wade:

In summary at the very most the abortion of any fetus was never more than a misdemeanor under the law or no crime at all and was certainly never considered to be murder. This wasn't something the Supreme Court made up and it was accepted by both the attorneys on both sides of the issue in Roe v Wade.

Next is the fact that early abortion laws were often about the health and welfare of the woman and many of those statutes were based upon this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

I have always encouraged "anti-abortionists to read Roe v Wade and then to find possible flaws with that decision. I've certainly found flaws in other Supreme Court decisions and that is the first step in addressing an issue where a SCOTUS decision is concerned. To date I've had no takers so the Court's arguments remain fundamentally unchallenged.

 

Throughout history it has always been held that prior to the "quickening" (i.e. animation of the fetus) that the fetus was a part of the woman's body (re: Rov v Wade). Even today only a very small percentage of people, about 15%, believe that "life begins at conception" and overwhelmingly people believe that "life" begins sometime later than that. There is virtually no argument that early term abortions (i.e. first trimester) are acceptable in our society and that is when the vast majority of abortions occur.

 

The blastocyst is like an acorn. The fetus (at least in its early stages) is like a seedling.




A fully developed "fetus" is nothing less than an unborn baby.

 

It is not immoral or illegal to kill seedlings.

 

If it's prohibited in National Parks, I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal with humans.

If liberals only cared as much about little human lives as they do about trees...

 

A fully developed fetus is highly protected under the Roe v Wade decision as abortion is not elective at that point. Only a serious medical threat to the life or health of the woman as determined by medical professionals allows for late abortions. An abortion at that point is not elective, it's a medical necessity.

I don't believe there's much argument related to this limitation on abortions by anyone and this isn't really a contentious issue related to abortion. The issue seems to be related to first term abortions where a small percentage, about 15% of the people, believe that life begins at conception. Historically the "preborn" at this stage have always been considered a part of the woman's body where she had absolute authority over her body.

It is the infringement upon the woman's rights to an abortion in the first trimester, where the vast majority of abortions occur, that is the issue. The "anti-abortionists" have never been able to present a logical argument for why the woman's Rights should be violated.

 

For most people the choice for abortion is choosing lifestyle over life which shows the degradation of moral thinking in our society. To do that one has to rationalize that it is not life but some kind of mass that should be thrown out with the trash.

 

Roe v Wade protects no fetus but just forces abortions on States against the idea that the Federal Govt leaves those things that the States are to change to themselves, that is why we have abortions up to the day of birth in some places.

 

No argument here.

There's a glaring difference between the argument for slavery and the argument for fetal personhood. The slaves that their owners claimed were not a person, where actually not. There was no difference between a slave and it's owner other than very minor physical differences. There was nothing factual that separated the two or gave credence to that argument when made for slavery. Those people were using an incorrect argument. Are you trying to say there's no difference between a fetus and 5 year old? a 3 year old?

Agreed till the last part, because murder is when you kill a person, otherwise you'd never be able to disconnect the life support systems on terminally ill or braindead patients.

Independent entities do not require that one specific person to provide everything for them. Instead, what is developing is a future independent entity but it is not one at the fetal stage, so it very much falls under the discretion of the mother.

Agreed, but that's not what abortion is. I think the argument can be made that it's what late-term abortion is, but not before the fetus has developed the brain characteristics that actually make us people.

 

spontaneous abortions, also known as miscarriages are natural abortions of a process that had the potential of creating a baby, doctor assisted abortions are no different

 

I believe that what Catholic crusader was making was a very good point. The determining of personhood is arbitary, no one can say at this exact moment this blob of cells is now a person, or a human. It is logical to assume it is a human or a person at the begining. People constantly keep setting new criteria for the fetus to be considered a person. The most rational explaniation is at conception. The very first moment of the life of the new organism is a person at the earliset stage of their life. Those who support and agree with abortion appear to be simply making excuses to avoid the acceptance that this life should have the same value and the same rights as anyone else. A newly born baby has the same rights as a 40 year old person. The fetus should also be granted these same rights, and those who support and agree with abortions seem to be just arguing round in circles to try and justify that which should be unjustifable. Dehumanising any human being is detrimental to society.

 

What is arbitrary is saying that you're person the moment you are conceived because you can't even nail down when conception has actually occurred and which would also complicate things since many completely viable fertilized eggs never actually make it to the uterine wall meaning every time that happens, an alleged person has died. Birth is the most non-arbitrary way of measuring if someone is a person or not. There is no confusion that way, no hidden meanings, no arbitrary arguments about when you become a person or when conception has occurred. If you make it out, you're a person(to put it somewhat crudely).

 

I agree, but I'd add 2 things - there is no discussion of ethics/morality and in the science argument, people focus too much on life and not enough on other concepts, such as mental capacity. They take life as a given - if you can prove it is a human and alive, which it is, then apparently that ends the debate - it doesnt.

I do agree with you. I personally support the position of 'personhood' argument, but I think the law should be based on ethical arguments - not the other way around.

Well no. Now you've conflated science, morality and law and thereby defeated your own purpose. Yes, abortion is the killing of a human being, this is scientifically factual. However "murder" is a legal term, and thus does require a discussion of the law and thus the opinion of a judge or lawyer. Please dont make a fool of yourself. Its good to distinguish sections of a debate - not good to dismiss elements for your own gain.

Well, no. The fetus is not an autonomous individual - it isnt separate at all until it is external to the mother - ie born. It exists within the mother and without her would surely die very early on. Yes, a fetus (not a child) is a unique person, but that is irrelevant to its right to live.

Please learn the meaning of the words you use.

Depends on the conditions and details by which such a "snuff out" occurs.

Well no, we dont.

Its good to avoid this kind of thing if you really want a debate/discussion.

 

Roe v Wade protects the Rights of the Woman because the woman is a "person" that has Rights. At the same time it also affords extensive protections to the fetus at viability as a "potential person" and only when there is a conflict, such as the life or health of the woman conflicts with the life of the fetus as determined by medical professionals, does the Woman's Rights supersede the limited protections of the fetus as a potential person. There are no "elective" abortions in the third trimester. The SCOTUS did not and could not ethically allow a woman to be subjected to potential death or life-long health problems for the benefit of the fetus. That would be unethical by all standards.

The minimum Rights of the Person are protected under the US Constitution and while States can afford more expansive Rights for the Person all State laws must afford the minimum standards established by the US Constitution. Every State in the United States has agreed to this provision as the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

Ironically bringing up the example of slavery provides the argument of why the "anti-abortionists" need to address the issue as a Constitutional matter. It was ethical and logical arguments that lead to the 13th and 14th Amendments which finally addressed the problem of slavery.

 

Nobody ever did refute this post.

 

Just five pages of it....

 

Several did....naturally, you just don't accept their refutations. On points ranging from "separate individual"...given a fetus that is not viable outside the uterus is not "separate".......to your intermingling of the word of "child" with even a human ovum one second after fertliization.....

to, though you call abortion "murder"....you really don't believe that it IS "murder" and I myself can prove that by asking you just a few simple direct questions (questions I doubt you'll answer directly).

- - - Updated - - -

Typical blog debate tactic....declare "Nobody disproved me...because I refused to accept anything they said contradictory to my position, even if factual or logical. I win again!!!!"

 

A lump of cells that has no brain, no consciousness, and no self-awareness is not a person.

 

Another refutation of Catholic Crusader...is the eternal "abortion=slavery" argument the "pro-lifers" make.

Quite simple.....if they got their wish and abortion was banned? Who would be the "slave" and who would be the "master"?

Wouldn't the WOMAN be the "slave"? Her rights subjugated or denied at the behest of the "master" (the fetus) by Government regulation and control? Many of the "pro-lifers" have even admitted that under an "Abortion Prohibition"....women would be "controlled".

So if there is some "analogy" between abortion and slavery?.....who is the "slave" and who is the "master"...in the view of the "pro-lifers" when it comes to banning abortion?

 

more than refuted, it was blown to pieces.

Funniest thing in it for me was you stating about the law not being relevant and then posting abortion is murder, anyone with even the slightest knowledge would know that murder is a purely legal term and as such you open the debate to using legal arguments.

Sticking your head in the sand, ostrich style, doesn't mean no one has refuted and utterly destroyed your arguments.

 

Maybe you try again and address all the refutations.....

 

There were no refutations, only fake responses