Home - List All Discussions

UNANSWERED QUESTION for prochoicers

What's the (moral) distinction?

by: yoda

This quesiton has gone unanswered (in terms of a rational answer) by the prochochoicers on this forum, so I'll repeat it here on the chance that someone on that side might want to take a crack at it.

"What is the moral distinction between born and unborn homo sapiens that is of such moral significance that it justifies the the killing of the unborn and yet declares the killing of the born to be "immoral"?

reply from: yoda

Seven (7) views so far, and NO replies...........

reply from: Alexandra

They're probably working on an answer...they have to be able to twist and wrest and misrepresent...and they gotta make it sound intelligent.

That's just my guess.

reply from: yoda

Sounds about right, except for that last adjective........ ;-)

reply from: Alexandra

What I meant by sounding intelligent was using big words.

reply from: yoda

Ah yes, good old "technobabble"..........

reply from: AmericanPie

I've answered this elsewhere, but here it is again. In MHO, unless an unborn can survive outside its mother's body successfully, to me it is not yet a "person" with all the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to. Thus, abortion is not "killing a person", to me.

Once it is able to survive outside its mother's body, at about 6 months in many cases, then in MHO it is afforded all of the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to, and thus at that time it can be considered "murder" to end its life. Unless circumstances are such that the mother's life is in danger, at which point abortion at any stage is justifiable, since she is the "more" viable person.

A philosophy that not everyone agrees with, to be sure, but I stand by it.

reply from: BorisBadanov

I've answered this elsewhere, but here it is again. In MHO, unless an unborn can survive outside its mother's body successfully, to me it is not yet a "person" with all the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to. Thus, abortion is not "killing a person", to me.

Once it is able to survive outside its mother's body, at about 6 months in many cases, then in MHO it is afforded all of the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to, and thus at that time it can be considered "murder" to end its life. Unless circumstances are such that the mother's life is in danger, at which point abortion at any stage is justifiable, since she is the "more" viable person.

A philosophy that not everyone agrees with, to be sure, but I stand by it.

It was certainly a sad day when the US courts decided to go beyond scientific facts and classification, and base things off their own subjective opinions like you espouse.

It's one thing for you to say, "In my humble opinion,. . ." quite another when a universal decree is based on a similar subjective opinion by the SCOTUS.

reply from: yoda

Well, at least that's an effort to answer the question, I've got to hand you that.

Let's examine your premise:

First, you hinge your justification on the word "person". Then, you say that "it's not yet a person", which means that YOU choose not to award it that label.

Do you not see that you have based your justification for the killing of an innocent human being on your own decision not to call it a "person"? Are you saying that your will, your decision on which label to use carries with it the divine right to deny life to a human being?

And second, do you not know that except for the legal definition, an unborn baby IS a "person" in the vernacular?

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

reply from: Alexandra

My three-year-old can't live on his own--he's just no longer attached to me. Is he a person?

reply from: LochFyne

Since I don't have a moral objection to the euthanizing of terminally ill infants, if the decision is left to the parents, and is carried out in a timely and humane fashion (say, within twenty-four hours of birth via lethal injection), I'm probably the wrong person to ask this question of. That is, I don't see a moral distinction between the two.

reply from: ChristianLott

Do you support a more humane abortion?

reply from: LochFyne

Do you support a more humane abortion?

I'd like to see a euthanizing of the fetus prior to any abortion procedure that occurs once the fetus can feel pain.

reply from: yoda

Not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that a terminally ill infant and a healthy unborn infant are morally the same thing?

Why?

reply from: ChristianLott

What's the cut off age for you? Killing the baby 3 months after delivery okay?

reply from: LochFyne

I think I was pretty clear in my post, when I said a "timely fashion". Twenty-four hours (the number I gave) is timely. Three months is not.

reply from: Dmourning

One word: Viability

reply from: Tam

I think I was pretty clear in my post, when I said a "timely fashion". Twenty-four hours (the number I gave) is timely. Three months is not.

Sorry, can you clarify? Do you support euthanasia of all unwanted newborns or just the terminally ill ones?

reply from: Jenny222

"Once it is able to survive outside its mother's body, at about 6 months in many cases, then in MHO it is afforded all of the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to, and thus at that time it can be considered "murder" to end its life."

*My neice was born premature at 5 months and she is now a completely healthy 12 year old.

reply from: bobinsky

Dmourn, the issue of viability is a tricky one. How "viable" is a 6 month old fetus whose life must be sustained by massive amounts of medical intervention oftentimes for weeks, if not months? As medical technology advances, younger and younger feti may be able to be kept alive by machines, but are these truly "viable"? We've all seen the pictures of the premature babies tethered to machines, tubes everywhere, being poked, prodded, injected, pricked for blood. Is this the right thing to do?
I remember taking our son in for his first shots and he got his little foot pricked for a blood test. I was a mess! He didn't make a sound while I sobbed the entire time.

reply from: sarah

Bobinsky, shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide if their child should be given every opportunity to live?

Are you saying because it was hard to bare seeing your son have his heel pricked, that it would be more than you could handle to see him hooked up to whatever machines, tubes, etc. giving him every opportunity at a chance at life? Have I mis-understood you?

My son at age five was in the ICU hooked up to medical devices as he battled a life threating infection....the doctors had no idea if he would survive...my poor little guy suffered much with all the tubes, being tethered to machines, being poked, prodded, injected, etc. But, for it to have been any other way, he would not be here today. I'm happy to report my "little guy" will be 32 years old tomorrow! Gosh, I'm old!

I've never understood why the "age" of a human being should matter. Why not use the advances of medical technology? Why have the advances if they're not utilized?

reply from: bobinsky

It should be up to the parents and the physicians involved to decide.

Sarah, I would rely very heavily on the opinion of the doctors involved. But if I were in the situation I described, with a very premature child whose life consisted of tubes, injections, etc., hubby and I would opt for what we consider a more humane alternative and release the child from this "life", which it can hardly be called.

I'm so glad to hear that your little guy made it through. I know he got a lot of strength from his mama. You made the choice that was right for you, and I agree with it in the instance of a five yo. But when I see those tiny babies, barely bigger than a palm, knowing what is ahead of them for months and months, knowing that oftentimes the parents cannot hold them, I know that I would decide to release him. As far as the being old part, I can relate. Our "little guy" is 26. Where does all that time go? And where did this gray hair come from?

I don't know that all "advances" of medical technology can be considered "progress", especially if it consists of just prolonging the inevitable. There comes a time when someone needs to say "enough. No more". But all of this needs to be, or should be, decided ahead of time and dictated by the person choosing the option of not prolonging a mere existance. It's hard for those left behind, but the wishes of the person actually suffering are the wishes that should be followed.

reply from: Della22

I'm guessing you did not opt for circumscision of your son, right? Because THAT would be miserable. Having part of your privates snipped. Think of the pain. But don't think about how it would prevent against infection or help in the many complications later that he might endure.

I sure am glad my mother didn't decide to have me unhooked at the age of 7 months. I would not be here if I were. I DO enjoy my life, too. I'm glad she decided not to "let me go" so now I get to witness the miracles of motherhood. But then again, she was probably just thinking of what COULD be and not what I was going through at the time. She probably thought if I had a chance to survive I would come through unscathed and never would remember being hooked to a machine or how miserable I was...what do you know, she was right!

"Mere" existance? Perhaps we put a different value on life. I think it should be preserved as much as possible. And if someone "really cannot feel or think" as was the debate on the Terry Shaivo case, what does it matter if they are kept alive? If you place no judgement on those who would like to prolong the lives of their loved ones, even to the extent that you might find it morbid, then there is nothing wrong with it.

As for the wishes of those suffering, you are not advocating for THEIR wishes. You are advocating for the wishes of whomever is the next of kin or whoever has power of attourney. An infant, like an unborn child, cannot object to anyone ending it's life. So how do you know what their wish is. Maybe they are hanging on as strongly as they can because they WANT to live. So then I guess strength would be the deciding factor. Because someone who made the decision would have to decide based on the likelihood of survival (or the subject's strength) whether they should continue treatment or not. So it has NOTHING to do with the wishes of the person actually suffering. It is in someone else's hands.

reply from: yoda

Yes, it is.

But the trickiest thing about using viability as a dividing line is justifying it. How do those two things (viability and a moral right to life) relate to each other? How does weakness and vulnerability render a human being unworthy of the moral right to life?

And can we apply that criteria to born humans, and if not why not?

reply from: bobinsky

He was circumcised; hubby signed the paperwork as I recall and they informed me of it after the procedure was finished. Sure it's painful, but it healed quickly, keep it clean and dressed, just like the umbilical cord. So yes, he was circumcised.

That was your mother's decision and she was free to make it. As I said, it should be the parents' decision along with intervention and information from the doctor(s) involved. I happen to feel differently than you do. I take it you were a premie, while my brothers and I were on the other end: we were all huge babies, and my mother is only 5'6" and tiny. I was the smallest (and cutest, of course) and weight almost eleven pounds. My second oldest brother weight 13 lbs. 13 oz. And the four of us are each less than a year apart from the one next to us. I'm the youngest, with my brother B being exactly 10.5 months older than I am. Somebody was doing some fast work there.

reply from: bobinsky

He was circumcised; hubby signed the paperwork as I recall and they informed me of it after the procedure was finished. Sure it's painful, but it healed quickly, keep it clean and dressed, just like the umbilical cord. So yes, he was circumcised.

That was your mother's decision and she was free to make it. As I said, it should be the parents' decision along with intervention and information from the doctor(s) involved. I happen to feel differently than you do. I take it you were a premie, while my brothers and I were on the other end: we were all huge babies, and my mother is only 5'6" and tiny. I was the smallest (and cutest, of course) and weight almost eleven pounds. My second oldest brother weight 13 lbs. 13 oz. And the four of us are each less than a year apart from the one next to us. I'm the youngest, with my brother B being exactly 10.5 months older than I am. Somebody was doing some fast work there.

Yes, mere existance. If life is truly being lived, that's one thing, but just existing, waiting to die when the tubes are pulled, is not living. In the Schiavo case, her husband acted on her wishes, as he had every right to do. Most people I know having living willls/DPOA and the other related documents so they know they won't be left to linger and the decision won't be left in the hands of their loved ones. Their choice.

For those people who choose to sign living wills/DPOA and the rest of the paperwork, I advocate their right to do so and honor their right to die as they wish. If all the legalities are worked out ahead of time, then there should be no issues. My father, as did my mother, has his documents all in order, and during the Schiavo case, he had his attorney resend all the information concerning his wishes. Legally, we have to abide by his wishes, whether we want to or not. So no, do not assume I am advocating for anyone besides the person who is sick and suffering. You are wrong.

An infant, like an unborn child is under the supervision and guardianship of its parents. If the infant is very ill and the parents choose to let the child die peacefully, they have the right to make the decision, if it is an informerd, knowledgeable decision. They can't just decide to whack the kid. The unborn child is a different matter entirely. In most cases, parents make the decisions they feel are in the best interest of the child. This is their job.

You are wrong again. An infant does not have the capability to decide what is best for it. And how do YOU what a very sick infant with little chance of survival wants? You are presuming to know, but you are only guessing.

reply from: LochFyne

I think I was pretty clear in my post, when I said a "timely fashion". Twenty-four hours (the number I gave) is timely. Three months is not.

Sorry, can you clarify? Do you support euthanasia of all unwanted newborns or just the terminally ill ones?

Personally, I'm okay with the parents choosing to euthanize any newborn up to twenty-four hours after birth. However, I recognize and accept that I am in the minority on that. Most people who support infant euthanasia believe it should be confined to the terminally ill. I can see why they would feel that way, so it's not worth getting in a lather over to convince them of my position, which is this:

There are a number of birth defects that are not detectable in-utero. In general, we restrict post-viability abortions to seriously defective fetuses. A woman whose fetus has a severe defect that is undetectable prior to birth doesn't have the opportunity to choose a post-viability abortion. So it suits my sense of fairness that she should have a small window of opportunity after birth to avail herself of the full range of choices.

Again, speaking only for myself, I support any and all abortions throughout an entire pregnancy. I thought about that one a lot, and the conclusions I came to were: The number of women that actually would seek a post-viability abortion on a healthy fetus is small enough to not be of much concern. Something else, though, is more important. I believe a woman should have the right to stop being pregnant at any time. But there's not a doctor on the planet that would agree to end a healthy pregnancy post-viability but pre-term by inducing labor or giving a c-section. If there were any such doctors, I'd say, Cool. No more elective post-viability abortions.

reply from: Alexandra

LochFyne, you scare me, you really do--advocating the murder of innocent children! What in the world is wrong with you--are you psychopathic or something?

If my son had been born with a terminal illness, I would have let him live as long as possible, and if he were in pain, he would have been given painkillers. I would have held him as much as I could--and feel good knowing that he did not die by MY hand!

You know what the definition of MURDER is? Intentional killing of an innocent human being.

reply from: bobinsky

Would you allow that baby to be tethered to machines and tubes for an indefinite amount of time, now knowing whether he'd live or die? Also, there is only so much doctors can do to medicate tiny babies and giving heavy doses of narcotic painkillers is not an option for this alone would kill the child.

LF is not psychotic - well, at least not most of the time. She's up-to-date on her rabies shots, too. I do not agree with her position, but then it's a personal position and she's not trying to force it into law.

After we lost our second son, I found out from a floor nurse - and this was later confirmed by two other OB/GYNS - at the hospital that if he had been given a blood transfusion in-utero, he probably would have lived, because I was not treated for the RH thing after having our first son. Therefore, my body/blood poisoned the fetus and this is what killed him. We had no idea that this was the problem during the pregnancy. I blame myself for not being more aware of these things, but I trusted by OB/GYN. He was considered one of the best in the state. Yet had I asked more questions, perhaps things would have turned out differently. Hindsight is always 20/20, sadly enough.

Anyway, enough of my babbling.

reply from: yoda

Lest we simply argue opinions, as is often the case in this debate, here is what an authority in the field had to say before Congress in sworn testimony (emphasis added):

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/1997/pick_97/spec0303.htm

American Medical News ---- amednews.com ---- THE NEWSPAPER FOR AMERICA'S PHYSICANS -------

By Diane M. Gianelli, AMNews staff. March 3, 1997.

Abortion rights leader urges end to "half truths"

WASHINGTON -- Breaking ranks with his colleagues in the abortion rights movement, the leader of one prominent abortion provider group is calling for a more truthful debate in the ongoing battle over whether to ban a controversial late-term abortion procedure.

In fact, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he would rather not spend his political capital defending the procedure at all. There is precious little popular support for it, he says, and a federal ban would have almost no real-world impact on the physicians who perform late-term abortions or patients who seek them.

"The pro-choice movement has lost a lot of credibility during this debate, not just with the general public, but with our pro-choice friends in Congress," Fitzsimmons said. "Even the White House is now questioning the accuracy of some of the information given to it on this issue."

He cited prominent abortion rights supporters such as the Washington Post's Richard Cohen, who took the movement to task for providing inaccurate information on the procedure. Those pressing to ban the method call it "partial birth" abortion, while those who perform it refer to it as "intact" dilation and extraction (D&X) or dilation and evacuation (D&E).

What abortion rights supporters failed to acknowledge, Fitzsimmons said, is that the vast majority of these abortions are performed in the 20-plus week range on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers. "The abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else," he said.

He knows it, he says, because when the bill to ban it came down the pike, he called around until he found doctors who did them.

"I learned right away that this was being done for the most part in cases that did not involve those extreme circumstances," he said.

reply from: LochFyne

Last I knew, twenty weeks wasn't viability. Tell me how many abortions are being done on viable fetuses that don't involve maternal health issues or poor pre-natal diagnosis for the fetus.

The fact that there's only a couple of places in the country where a post-viability abortion can even be obtained suggests to me it's not happening too all-fired often.

reply from: chooselife

I've answered this elsewhere, but here it is again. In MHO, unless an unborn can survive outside its mother's body successfully, to me it is not yet a "person" with all the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to. Thus, abortion is not "killing a person", to me.

Once it is able to survive outside its mother's body, at about 6 months in many cases, then in MHO it is afforded all of the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to, and thus at that time it can be considered "murder" to end its life. Unless circumstances are such that the mother's life is in danger, at which point abortion at any stage is justifiable, since she is the "more" viable person.

A philosophy that not everyone agrees with, to be sure, but I stand by it.

So the worth of a human being is determined by the technology available to he/she? Babies born in small villages in 3rd world countries are not "humans" until later simply because they don't have NICU units? A mother who lives near a top notch medical facility has a "viable baby" at 5 months but one who lives in a rural area only has a "viable baby" at 7 months simply because of technology? Do you not think it incredibly dangerous to base something as inherrent as humanity and the right to live on technology??? What if we were to develop the technology that would keep a child alive starting at 3 months in utero? How can you have a definition that changes merely by technology??

reply from: sarah

What also is "scary" is that she's not alone in this type of thinking. I believe that Sen. Boxer shares this idea, as repulsive as it is. It's abortion on demand's hedious logical conclusion. All you have to do is to look to the Netherlands to see where a pro-death collective mentality will lead.

reply from: ForLife

Sad to read of the different subjective dates or circumstances under which some believe others lives could electively be terminated. Dr. Singer says a child can be euthanized up to 6 weeks after birth since the child is not yet as developed as a fish; at least the fish is alert and aware and can escape predators!

Senator Barabara Boxer says the child does not get the rights promised in the Constitution until the mother makes the decision to take the child home from the hospital.

Human life should be given the greatest respect from the moment a new human is conceived to natural death.

reply from: ForLife

Let me correct my last post. Barbara Boxer says the child is not given the protection of the US Constitution until the mother actually does take the child home from the hospital. The point of protection does not begin yet from the time when the mother makes a decision to take the child home. You want to err on the side of death! Mom can still change her mind before leaving! Every opportunity must be made available to the mother to choose death.

reply from: sarah

I knew she held a close belief to that of LF. I had forgotten that it was until the time the mother took her child home, which could amount to more than a day after delivery.
Isn't that just lovely?
ONLY someone completely devoid of a heart and soul could look on the face of a helpless infant and think such hedious thoughts.

reply from: yoda

I hate to be quarrelsome, but in it's noun form murder is nearly always defined as the "Illegal killing of a human being". It's verb form is another matter, legality does not always matter there.

reply from: Tam

I hate to be quarrelsome, but in it's noun form murdere is nearly always defined as the "Illegal killing of a human being". It's verb form is another matter, legality does not matter there.

Really. Interesting. So it's technically correct to say "an abortionist murders a child" but not legally correct to say "an abortionist ending the life of a child is murder." Well, since I know that grammar is so important to some people, I'll be sure to pay attention to that rule from now on.

Abortionists murder children! That's what they do for a living! I can say it all I please!

Thanks, yoda!

reply from: LochFyne

Yo has misinformed you, Tam.

From dictionary.com:

reply from: yoda

Oh, the horrible lies you tell about me! While the verb form is sometimes defined as killing someone illegally, it is also defined thusly:

Main Entry: 2murderFunction: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE http:// http:// http://www.m-w.com<B

murder • murdered, murdering, murders Definition 1. to kill (someone) intentionally or brutally.
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=murder&matchtype=exact

murder 2. transitive verb kill somebody brutally: to kill somebody with great violence and brutality
http://

reply from: LochFyne

Yo said:

Yet the very first entry for the verb form at dictionary.com was:

Now he appears to be saying it only SOMETIMES doesn't matter.

You may make up your own minds as to what he meant by his initial declaration, while I phone the Apostrophe Police on him.

reply from: yoda

Okay, put the handcuffs on me, I mispoke. I even went back and changed the post.

Will you ever forgive me?

reply from: yoda

"What is the moral distinction between born and unborn homo sapiens that is of such moral significance that it justifies the the killing of the unborn and yet declares the killing of the born to be "immoral"?

reply from: LochFyne

Since I'm the one that has no moral problem with the twenty-four hour post-birth euthanasia window, I'll presume this question is meant for someone else.

reply from: LochLynne

The problem is in your framing. You grant primacy to the fetus.

My empahsis is on a woman's choice. I'm not going to adopt your centrality because it's not relevant to me. A woma's control over her body is what's important to me.

Therefore in my value system and my poltical view, your question eleimainates women from the picture all together. I'm not willing to do that. I simply see the entire question as an artifact of male dominance.

reply from: Tam

You grant primacy to the fetus.

That is untrue. What is true, however, is that you grant primacy to the mother.

Let's talk about your life and who controls it. At what precise moment would you have the law state that your mother could have killed you for whatever reason she saw fit? At what point do you become part of your mother? At what point is your body not your own?

reply from: yoda

Point taken. Here's a special wording for you:
"What is the moral distinction between a month old baby and a younger baby (or an unborn baby) that is of such moral significance that it justifies the the killing of the unborn and yet declares the killing of the born to be "immoral"?

reply from: yoda

Not at all. I grant "primacy" to all innocent human life. You grant it to those who have the power to take innocent human life.

Yes, I get the impression that to you all the problems in the world are caused by male dominance. Well, that's a good subject for another thread.

No, one cannot possibly eliminate the pregnant mother from the picture, because to do so would jeapordize both lives. In my "picture", both mother and child deserve to have their lives respected in innocence.

I realize that the phrase "respect for life" is my own moral construct, which you do not have to share.

reply from: LochFyne

You know how that one poster stomped her feet and blustered that she wouldn't take her god out of the discussion of abortion? Well, I believe you will find Lynne similarly unwilling to take her radical feminist beliefs out of the discussion of abortion.

reply from: yoda

I have no doubt you are right. That's devious debate tactic #1029, "always change the subject".

reply from: bobinsky

Not bad statements. The first, of course is positively true. The second is the one that begs the question: by forcing a woman to continue an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy against her wishes, how are you respecting her?

reply from: yoda

That's your strawman, you put a hat on him.

reply from: bobinsky

locylynne said:

Tam replied:

What about LL's statement is untrue? You do grant primacy to the fetus, because if it comes down to the rights of the mother of the fetus, you choose the "right" of the fetus to be born. How is this NOT granting primacy to the fetus? And, if you had your way, you would make abortion a criminal act, meaning a woman would have to become a criminal in order to make a choice about what to do with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. You give all the rights in the matter to the fetus.

If I can chime in, as an adult female, I control my body, just like you control your body. I thought you pro-lifers didn't believe that a fetus is part of the mother, even though it's attached to her through the umbilical cord, is house in her womb, and is nourished by her body.

reply from: bobinsky

Not a strawman at all. You just want to avoid answering the question. How can you fully respect a woman when you refuse to let her make decisions about her own body? The answer is that you can't. Say what you want about protecting the fetus, but you cannot respect a woman if she is forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.

reply from: Tam

Tam replied:

What about LL's statement is untrue?

Primacy is defined as "the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank)" by Merriam-Webster.

I based my statement on that definition. Are you using a different definition?

The right in question is the right to live. Both mother and child possess that right equally. Neither has primacy.

And, before you start in on some imaginary "rights" that would allow abortion: the right to life is an actual right. The "right to destroy a child living in your womb" is not.

If I can chime in, as an adult female, I control my body, just like you control your body. I thought you pro-lifers didn't believe that a fetus is part of the mother, even though it's attached to her through the umbilical cord, is house in her womb, and is nourished by her body.

What I meant about your body was intended to refer to the point in time when your body was attached to your mom's body. Or, if I were addressing LF, perhaps a day later.

The child is not part of the mother. In fact, at first, the child is not even attached to, or nourished by, the mother. Only after implantation is the child thus attached and nourished. The child's body is separate from the mother's body. In some cases, the mixing of their bloodstreams can be very dangerous to the health of one or both of them. They have two separate bodies. Between the moment of implantation and the moment the umbilical cord stops pulsing after birth, the mom is nourishing the child. Between the moment of implantation and the moment the cord is cut, the mom and child are physically connected. Their bodies, however, are never one body, any more than the "one flesh" a married couple is supposed to possess is a literal description of sharing a physical body. Even in the case of conjoined twins, it is highly debatable whether it is one or two bodies in question. In the case of mother and child, it is quite clearly two separate bodies that experience a period of attachment for the purposes of nourishment of one by the other. That nourishment and attachment continues through the nursing phase, but in a less direct, continual way, rather than a direct, continuous way. If you have scientific evidence to refute anything I've said about the bodies of the mother and child, please share it with me.

reply from: yoda

How can you expect an answer when your question contains a lie?

Have you stopped beating your husband?

reply from: yoda

Funny how they all trip over that point, and never see it. While they feel safe and secure in their own life, they see no value at all in someone else's life.

I wonder how they would feel about "life" if someone threatened to kill them for the sake of convenience, or money? I'll bet they would have an sudden awakening to the "value of life"!

reply from: bobinsky

If you're referring to the Rh factor yes, it is dangerous. If the child's body were really separate from the mother's, then the Rh factor wouldn't be a danger for either the woman or fetus. However, since the fetus is attached, the simple Rh factor can kill one or both.

Not only are the woman and fetus physically connected, the fetus is housed in her body. And without the woman's body and the nourishment her body provides, the fetus would not - could not - exist.

You've said it all yourself. The fetus's life depends on its physical attachment to the mother through the umbilical cord and the fetus's place in her uterus. What affects the mother affects the fetus: smoking, drugs, drinking, etc., since all life comes from the woman. So if the two were really "separate", as you claim, then things that affect the mother wouldn't have bother the fetus.
Your analogy of the two as one, as in marriage, is a whole different ball of wax. Two independent entities, not reliant on one another for nourishment or life. If my husband drinks a beer, I won't get a buzz.

Not in the case of the pro-lifers. You give the fetus more value than the woman; her right to privacy and to be secure in her own person is removed from her by pro-lifers because she's pregnant. There is no "enumeration" in the Constitution/BOR that says a woman's rights granted by her under the USC/BOR changes upon pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

This is one of the more assinine and idiotic claims of the proaborts.

Is a tapeworm that is attached to the gut of a human a "part of" that human? How about a tick?

If the baby is male, does that mean that the pregnant woman is both male and female?

When the zygote floats free for a few days after it's first fertilized, is it not "part" of the woman since it's not attached?

How can one creature have two distinct DNA codes?

Why does the fetus have to produce a hormone that inhibits the mothers' immune reaction if it's "part of" the mother's body?

(Of course, no one will answer any of these questions either.)

reply from: bobinsky

Just say you can't answer the question. I don't have a problem with it.

And another idiotic statement that has nothing to do with anything. Another baseless assumption.

reply from: yoda

Yes, it was. JUST LIKE YOUR QUESTION!!

reply from: bobinsky

Let's see, since you messed up on the parasite question, it only stands to reason that you wouldn't get this right either. Is the tapeworm connected to the body by an umbilical cord? Is the tick?

Since the zygote may or may not attach to the uterine lining, then no, it's not part of the woman.

I would ask the woman, if I were you, to check her body parts and her genetic code and then ask her to get back to you with the answer.

Another of the favorite old saws of the anti-choicers. This has nothing to do with the issue. The fetus has a distinct DNA code because it is a product of two different people, or didn't you know this?

Well, look at this another way. If the fetus WEREN'T attached to the mother, it wouldn't NEED to produce said hormone. Since it is attached, the necessity is there. Also, looking at science, and speaking of immune reactions, there are diseases where a person's own immune system attacks the person's body: lupus is one example.

reply from: bobinsky

You know, yoda, I've looked back through almost all the old posts on this site, at least those that are accesible, and you have played this same game with every pro-choce person that comes on the board. Every single one. So your accusations about pro-choicers not answering the questions and making baseless asssumptions, etc. is a pattern of yours - not a flattering one either - that you seem to use to hector the pro-choicers until they get tired of your crappola and leave. Then you claim victory. This is how losers "win".

And the same goes for your "morality" argument. Your morals are not my morals are not Pamela Anderson's morals. Morals are relative. People explain this to you over and over and over and over and you still don't get the picture. Your only hope is that people get sick of this woesome "argument" and leave.

As I've said, reading these past posts has given me much information and insight into the lives and thoughts of you board denizens, and I have to say that the majority of you people that hammer on about morality really don't have the right to. Cast the first stone and all that.

reply from: yoda

They are both "attached" in a parasitic relationship. What has the name of the attachment mechanism to do with anything?

So the zygote is NOT a part, then when it attaches it IS a part, then when it detaches at birth it is NOT a part again? My, that makes me dizzy just thinking abou it......

Another smart-ass substitute for an answer?
And the mother is NOT a "product of two different people"? What sort of a demented answer is that? Answer the question with something other than a riddle....... if you can.

So being attached equals being "a part of"? Well, that makes a tapeworm a "part of" it's host, doesn't it?

reply from: yoda

Until I read this, I was going to congratulate you for your first effort to actually answer some questions straight up. Not that you did, but you attempted to. But now that I read this little whiney, soap-opera dialogue of yours, I don't think you deserve credit for even that.

Wow, does she know that? 8-O Oh wow, she will be crushed! As for you and your proabort budds, all I ask you for is YOUR moral opinions, and that puts you in a hissy-fit. So what else is new?

Is mind-reading a part of your "psychosis"?

reply from: Tam

If you're referring to the Rh factor yes, it is dangerous. If the child's body were really separate from the mother's, then the Rh factor wouldn't be a danger for either the woman or fetus. However, since the fetus is attached, the simple Rh factor can kill one or both.

You are right--the body of the child IS attached to the body of the mother for a time, and during that time, the Rh factor can present a problem. In fact, in an interesting twist, the problem only occurs if the bodies of the two become more closely attached than they should be (bloodstreams mingling). Even then, though, of course, it's still two bodies.

Not only are the woman and fetus physically connected, the fetus is housed in her body. And without the woman's body and the nourishment her body provides, the fetus would not - could not - exist.

That's true. The body of the child is housed in the body of the mother. Without the mother's nourishment, the child would die.

Yes, that is true.

Sure, and that continues throughout the nursing phase as well.

That is not true, as I've just explained. Nursing is a form of attachment in which what affects the mom's body also has an effect on the child's body.

Right, because you have two separate bodies. But if you drank a beer and nursed a child, the child would be affected. You know this, right?

Not in the case of the pro-lifers. You give the fetus more value than the woman; her right to privacy and to be secure in her own person is removed from her by pro-lifers because she's pregnant.

The child has no more right to live than the mother. Neither has primacy. If there is a right to privacy, both mom and child have that right as well. Perhaps it is a violation of the child's right to privacy to have his or her body dismembered and pulled from his or her home to be displayed to abortionists and their assistants, possibly photographed, etc. Hey--that might be a good angle for someone like Dmourning who doesn't like abortion photos--claim a photo of an aborted child violates the child's right to privacy!

That's true. The woman's right to live doesn't change if she conceives a new life. She has the right to live for her entire life--from conception until natural death--regardless of her state of health, development, etc.

reply from: chantistar

Man, this is a great forum! I have been veraciously looking up websites on abortion and anti-abortion every time I get online. It seems to be the only subject that I'm interested because of it's pure emotional impact on everyone else, and especially me. I like the answers you people are displaying on here. I am very proud to be prolife and I like it when there are other smart people with my views, too (so I can steal their words and say them to someone else when I'm at a loss for words ).

Anyway, I have a child and I felt the fear women who get abortions felt. I understood then, why women get abortions: it's all FEAR. I was never so lonely, depressed, dejected, hurt, angry, you name it. I was every emotion. I wasn't and still am not married or graduated from college. I was the exotic animal on campus with my belly sticking out. I didn't like the stares people gave me. I got unwanted attention.

But, now that all that is past, thankfully, I love my daughter and love showing her off! I get so angry when people say it's a "right" and this and that because they're telling me that I had the "right" to kill my daughter. That does not FLY with me. No SIR. I will have no problem stomping anyone's lights out if they even lay a finger on my daughter from now until forever, even when she's 40 and I'm 60 I also feel I must protect my daughter because she was in the same exact position that those babies who are going to be aborted are in. She was at one time a zygote, a blastycyst, 3weeks, 7weeks, 12 weeks, 21 weeks. They are saying it's ok to kill those babies who are exactly the same shape and size as my precious daughter and that doesn't fly with me EITHER. That's an affront to my daughter, her dignity, and her valuable life. That is a slap in the face to her development, to my struggles, and to God. Excuse me if I had the guts to go through with something I didn't want to happen in the first place. Excuse me if I sucked up my immaturity, excuse me for doing the moral thing, the hard thing, the right thing. Excuse me for realizing that God is in control and that my actions were naive and stupid. Excuse me for giving birth to a beautiful 8lb 13oz girl, gaining 70lbs, and now I weigh 133 lbs at 5'9''. Excuse me for embracing my body, and my baby. Excuse me for being depressed and sad and knowing that my body would never be the same awesome figure it had been before.

You know, I could seriously go postal on someone. But, I'll just keep it cool for now. It's too close to my heart to let someone put me down. I believe in all prolife opinions, but what I really believe in is my daughter and how I know she didn't just get 9lbs over night. Wake up idiots. I didn't get kicked in the ribs by arms and legs that used the calcium in my body to form her bones, by some "non-person." Get a degree in life.

reply from: Tam

Right on! Welcome to the forum!

Yes, I think most killing of other humans is committed out of fear, including abortion and murder of born people.

Exactly! I use the example of valuing my OWN life as why I couldn't justify supporting ending the life of someone else, but your daughter works, too! If it's wrong to kill her today, it was wrong to kill her yesterday, and the day before, right up until the moment she came into existence. At no time would it be ok to kill her! I understand completely. She is the same person she has been since her first day of existence--she's grown and changed and matured, but she's a unique individual and no one had the right to kill her then, any more than they do now.

NOT "excuse" you! Bless you! Thank you! Praise you! Appreciate you! Honor you! Love you! Assist you! You did the right thing--Good For You!

LOL

Tam

reply from: RachelNewman

So by this persons thinking, any human being unable to function on their own i.e. breathe for themselves is not a viable person. Should we then switch off all life support machines?

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Rachel. Yes, proaborts go to bizarre lengths to think up ways to justify killing innocent babies. They seem to find it's not an easy concept to sell by telling the truth.

reply from: BorisBadanov

I have yet to see a logically consistent argument that "personhood" begins at any time other than conception. Any attempt to say that the right to life kicks in at some other time than when existence kicks in is arbirtrary, and they always wind up excluding people -- like Grandma on a respirator -- who they would never say does not have a right to live.

The funniest part is that all of their attempts to define "personhood" that is not synonomous with the bodily existence of a human being are much more based on souls and spirituality than anything we religious folks talk about.

reply from: yoda

Ironic, isn't it Boris? In order to pursue their killing agenda, they will even try to "outspiritualize" religious people.

reply from: cali1981

I have yet to see a logically consistent argument that "personhood" begins at any time other than conception. Any attempt to say that the right to life kicks in at some other time than when existence kicks in is arbirtrary, and they always wind up excluding people -- like Grandma on a respirator -- who they would never say does not have a right to live.

The funniest part is that all of their attempts to define "personhood" that is not synonomous with the bodily existence of a human being are much more based on souls and spirituality than anything we religious folks talk about.

How very interesting. Great point, Boris.

reply from: ThereIsNoRightAnswer

They are both "attached" in a parasitic relationship. What has the name of the attachment mechanism to do with anything?

So the zygote is NOT a part, then when it attaches it IS a part, then when it detaches at birth it is NOT a part again? My, that makes me dizzy just thinking abou it......

Another smart-ass substitute for an answer?
And the mother is NOT a "product of two different people"? What sort of a demented answer is that? Answer the question with something other than a riddle....... if you can.

So being attached equals being "a part of"? Well, that makes a tapeworm a "part of" it's host, doesn't it?

But is the tapeworm made from cells and DNA provided by the mother and father? The fetus is a product (and I use this term as in a "result") of the parents. Should the woman not be able to choose what happens to her body...and in the case of the fetus it is her own body.

reply from: AshMarie88

They are both "attached" in a parasitic relationship. What has the name of the attachment mechanism to do with anything?

So the zygote is NOT a part, then when it attaches it IS a part, then when it detaches at birth it is NOT a part again? My, that makes me dizzy just thinking abou it......

Another smart-ass substitute for an answer?
And the mother is NOT a "product of two different people"? What sort of a demented answer is that? Answer the question with something other than a riddle....... if you can.

So being attached equals being "a part of"? Well, that makes a tapeworm a "part of" it's host, doesn't it?

But is the tapeworm made from cells and DNA provided by the mother and father? The fetus is a product (and I use this term as in a "result") of the parents. Should the woman not be able to choose what happens to her body...and in the case of the fetus it is her own body.

The fetus is not the mother's body. The fetus has a seperate DNA, seperate blood supply, different organs, etc...

Yes, the woman should be able to choose what happens to her body... When it doesn't involve killing another body/life!

reply from: Tam

When looking at a textbook of anatomy and physiology, looking at the body parts belonging to a woman, there are two relevant body parts: eggs and the womb. There is no body part of the woman which is a child. When a part of the man's body--the sperm--fertilizes her egg, a third person--the child--is created. The child's body is, at first, very small--the size of the fertilized egg. Then, the child grows up and becomes an adult. There is no sense in which the child is "part of the mother's body." That is a lie told by those who want to be able to kill unborn children. They should just say, "It should be legal to kill unborn children." That IS a matter of opinion, after all. What is NOT a matter of opinion, but a matter of indisputable biological fact, is that the child is at NO TIME a part of the mother's body. The child's body is contained within the womb--which IS part of the mother's body--but the CHILD'S body is his/her own.

reply from: AshMarie88

I've answered this elsewhere, but here it is again. In MHO, unless an unborn can survive outside its mother's body successfully, to me it is not yet a "person" with all the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to. Thus, abortion is not "killing a person", to me.

Once it is able to survive outside its mother's body, at about 6 months in many cases, then in MHO it is afforded all of the rights and liberties that a viable person is entitled to, and thus at that time it can be considered "murder" to end its life. Unless circumstances are such that the mother's life is in danger, at which point abortion at any stage is justifiable, since she is the "more" viable person.

A philosophy that not everyone agrees with, to be sure, but I stand by it.

Doesn't say much for babies born BEFORE 6 months, that survive.

reply from: AshMarie88

Do you support a more humane abortion?

I'd like to see a euthanizing of the fetus prior to any abortion procedure that occurs once the fetus can feel pain.

That's around 20 weeks, or before even.

reply from: AshMarie88

I think I was pretty clear in my post, when I said a "timely fashion". Twenty-four hours (the number I gave) is timely. Three months is not.

I don't wanna curse here, so I'll put this lightly... THAT IS HORRIBLE!! Killing a born child under 24 hours of age is okay?!

reply from: AshMarie88

Hmm... I wonder if she (you) support/s killing a born child, under 24 hours, WITHOUT euthanasia. Or hey, what about euthanasizing a 2 year old!

reply from: Iwanttohaveyourabortion

that is like saying could an all powerful god microwave a burrito so hot that he could not eat it.

reply from: chantistar

It's spelt Buddha, not budda. lmao

God's name is "Yahweh" for "I AM."

reply from: Jachin

You know, I think that's an interesting point. If the fetus is part of the "body" of the mother because it contains part of the mothers genetic makeup and is connected to her by an umbilical cord, wouldn't you be forced to admit that, in the same line of argument, the child is also part of the FATHER'S body? After all, the OTHER half of the fetus' DNA comes from the father, and actually the sperm that fertilized the egg is absorbed into it's body and becomes a kind of permanent resident. So, if you argue a mother has any right of possession to the child's life, the father has as well, and should be having the right to demand an abortion as well, since if you argument THIS way, you only have a right of possession to fifty percent of the child's body, since the other half is made up of the fathers genes.

Before anyone asks: Yes, I'm a Father's Rights activist, but this question in peculiar was more sarcasm than anything else.

reply from: yoda

The "part of the mother's body" argument is an extremely weak old canard. Any student of human reproduction knows that after fertilization, the zygote floats freely down the "tube" for a few days before it implants. During that time it is completely independent of the mother, and it's unique DNA code makes it just as much an individual creature as the mother herself. The fact that it then enters into a parasitic relationship with it's mother changes absolutely nothing.

reply from: Jachin

Yes, I noticed. Sorry for pulling this thread on top again, I came into this forum via a search at Google and only noticed afterwards it was almost two months old.

reply from: yoda

The age of the thread doesn't matter, Jachin. Feel free to revive old ones anytime you like.

reply from: Tam

Personally, I'm okay with the parents choosing to euthanize any newborn up to twenty-four hours after birth. ... So it suits my sense of fairness that she should have a small window of opportunity after birth to avail herself of the full range of choices.
on the subject of "post-natal abortions"--I'm bumping the original thread where these statements were made

reply from: cali1981

This is a great thread; I'm glad it was bumped. Just calls attention to the fact that this question has YET to be answered by pro-choicers!!

reply from: Motherto5

I think I was pretty clear in my post, when I said a "timely fashion". Twenty-four hours (the number I gave) is timely. Three months is not.
Sorry, can you clarify? Do you support euthanasia of all unwanted newborns or just the terminally ill ones?
Personally, I'm okay with the parents choosing to euthanize any newborn up to twenty-four hours after birth. However, I recognize and accept that I am in the minority on that. Most people who support infant euthanasia believe it should be confined to the terminally ill. I can see why they would feel that way, so it's not worth getting in a lather over to convince them of my position, which is this:
There are a number of birth defects that are not detectable in-utero. In general, we restrict post-viability abortions to seriously defective fetuses. A woman whose fetus has a severe defect that is undetectable prior to birth doesn't have the opportunity to choose a post-viability abortion. So it suits my sense of fairness that she should have a small window of opportunity after birth to avail herself of the full range of choices.
Again, speaking only for myself, I support any and all abortions throughout an entire pregnancy. I thought about that one a lot, and the conclusions I came to were: The number of women that actually would seek a post-viability abortion on a healthy fetus is small enough to not be of much concern. Something else, though, is more important. I believe a woman should have the right to stop being pregnant at any time. But there's not a doctor on the planet that would agree to end a healthy pregnancy post-viability but pre-term by inducing labor or giving a c-section. If there were any such doctors, I'd say, Cool. No more elective post-viability abortions.
Wow- I cannot believe what I've just read. I've only got to page two of this thread- and my blood is already boiling.
What on earth do people think being a parent is?!?!? Are we not suppose to love unconditionally? Are we not to love and nuture our children- not matter what the situation?
I couldn't fathom not fighting for the lives of one my children if they where ill and they had any chance at survival.
And when you speak of the terminally ill babies... our second daughter was one. She was born without kidneys nor a bladder(potters syndrome), and very minimal lung development at 34 weeks. We knew her prognosis before her birth. But choose to hold and love her until the LORD TOOK her. We did not prolong the envitable.. but still loved, held her, and cherished every single moment we had with her. I can't imagine how anyone could just hand that baby over to a doctor or nurse and say ok- kill him/her.
It makes me SICK TO the depths of my soul to think that a mother would want to kill her child because he/she does not meet up to the worlds standards.
The arguments from the pro-choicers are just stupid and idiotic.. I do not know why we continue to argue with them... Their moral compass is obviously COMPLETELY out of wack.
Our prayers need to be with them and any future disabled children they may have.
~Mother to 5

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm sorry about your daughter. She was truly blessed to have parents like you and your husband. All your children are. I'm so you've come to this forum.

reply from: Tam

I echo Shiprah's sentiments!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics