Definitions don't agree with your beliefs either.
Fetus denotes a stage of human life not a different type of life all together.
Legal definitions are for the purposes of enforcing and prosecuting the law.
Last edited:
Alabama outlaws abortion . . .
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Definitions don't agree with your beliefs either.
Fetus denotes a stage of human life not a different type of life all together.
Legal definitions are for the purposes of enforcing and prosecuting the law.
This is an interesting summary of the current legal status and definition of a foetus.
https://embryo-ethics.smd.qmul.ac.uk/tutorials/embryo-and-the-law/english-law-foetus/
https://embryo-ethics.smd.qmul.ac.uk/tutorials/embryo-and-the-law/english-law-foetus/
Soldato
Pro-life 'feminist' (I'm guessing, hopefully wrongly)@h4rm0ny where you at? I thought you'd be all over this one
@Caracus2k
To make my position clear I believe the current process we have in the UK is about right, but I've tried to keep my other replies within the context of the Alabama ruling hence my stance on women's rights, which are being ignored entirely by these U.S. officials.
I can't imagine there are many women who say they'd like to kill their fetus, rather that they want to end the pregnancy or don't want to be pregnant anymore.
For some women it may be that they want to end it from the fear of strictly religious parents finding out, or having a family history of suicide from post-natal depression. None of these reasons are considered in the ruling, the right of the fetus takes precedence.
And as much as you and others don't like it, terminating a pregnancy is just that, ending the pregnancy. Unfortunately for the fetus, this has an unavoidable fatal consequence. When a critically injured patient has life support switched off are they being killed too, or is their death the unavoidable consequence of having the machine switched off? Would you say the doctors killed that person, which despite being correct according to your definitions above, isn't really an appropriate or sympathetic way to describe such an awful event. Similarly, referring to abortion as "killing the fetus/child/baby" is just a vulgar attempt to cause even greater heartbreak and misery to these women even if it you deem it the correct definition.
To make my position clear I believe the current process we have in the UK is about right, but I've tried to keep my other replies within the context of the Alabama ruling hence my stance on women's rights, which are being ignored entirely by these U.S. officials.
I can't imagine there are many women who say they'd like to kill their fetus, rather that they want to end the pregnancy or don't want to be pregnant anymore.
For some women it may be that they want to end it from the fear of strictly religious parents finding out, or having a family history of suicide from post-natal depression. None of these reasons are considered in the ruling, the right of the fetus takes precedence.
And as much as you and others don't like it, terminating a pregnancy is just that, ending the pregnancy. Unfortunately for the fetus, this has an unavoidable fatal consequence. When a critically injured patient has life support switched off are they being killed too, or is their death the unavoidable consequence of having the machine switched off? Would you say the doctors killed that person, which despite being correct according to your definitions above, isn't really an appropriate or sympathetic way to describe such an awful event. Similarly, referring to abortion as "killing the fetus/child/baby" is just a vulgar attempt to cause even greater heartbreak and misery to these women even if it you deem it the correct definition.
Soldato
@h4rm0ny where you at? I thought you'd be all over this one
Replying because I got the alert generated by your @. No, this isn't a topic I wish to discuss at this time.
Soldato
Good grief did you used to work at the Daily Mail?
And not all meat eaters would like to state what's on their plate is murdered animal flesh but that's what it is none the less.
We seem largely to be arguing past one another if you read what was consistently in my posts you could see that my position would not be that of the Alabama law.
However you arguments are systematic of one of the the extreme position I referred to earlier.
You talk (correctly) about the Alabama law being at or ar least close to what I called point 1. But then you have repeatedly sounded like an advocate of point 2.
You have repeatedly asserted positions to the effect that a woman has (apparently total) dominion of her body and fetus on one hand but are now suggesting that the UK position (where there are legal term limits for certain forms of abortion) is about right in your view?
Make your mind up because the UK position, in practice, isnt 'my body my choice' but rather a position on the respective rights of a woman and a fetus with one of the major determining factors being the gestational state of the fetus.
I. E 'point 3' on my chart. So what is it do women have charge of their bodies when pregnant or are there circumstances where they don't?
Why on earth do your persist in making such silly comparisons?
A person who has their life support turned off is someone who has been subject to a process of careful, independent assement with a decision taken that there is little to no realistic chance of an improvement in their condition from the vegative/low consciousness state they are currently in.
A fetus conversely might well expected to survive and thrive if not terminated in utereo.
If a patient was on life support and was expected to make a significant recovery then you would be killing them if you turned of that life support.
Last edited:
Fair enough, can't argue with that.
Caporegime
Question: Under the new laws, if someone were to gut punch a woman that they did not know was pregnant, and this caused her to misscarry, would the puncher be done for manslaughter?
Caporegime
Dudes not fighting back against physical attacks from women making all the more sense now
Dudes not fighting back against physical attacks from women making all the more sense now
Of course that doesn't stop the good old law makers attacking women for no reason.
https://boingboing.net/2019/05/22/republican-lawmaker-punched.html
Exactly which part of my analysis is incorrect?
As I have said already. I am not an "Anti-Abortionist"
But I do seem to be pretty much the only person here (Apart form actual anti-abortionists) who is willing to accept an abortion for what it actually is!
The deliberate ending of a Human life.
Now, I am not wishing to comment specifically on the US position. But when watching this, remember that the UK age limit is 24 weeks.
(Note, there is nothing gruesome or unpleasant in this clip)
Also, check this out.
(Again, nothing gratuitously gruesome or unpleasant)
https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week
Now, what I am looking for are arguments supporting the idea that killing a Fetus by terminating a pregnancy at 22 weeks is not killing a "person".
Indeed, it is hard to see how killing a fetus at 12 weeks is not doing so. But if we assume a 12 week fetus does not qualify as being a "Person", then at what point between the two time points does the magical transformation from #JBOC>Person take place and what defines this event?
Just a Bunch Of Cells
Now, if no such point can be established, then it has to be accepted that a 12 week fetus is also a "Person". Again, how can it not be (Arguments please)
Now it starts to get a bit more difficult defining the "magic moment" at which the JBOC>Person transition occurs between conception and 12 weeks.
As we track back from 12 weeks, the fetus ceases to look particularly human or even like anything recognizable really. It really does look just like JBOC.
But is it, and at what point does that JBOC>Person transition take place? How can one define it? Again, is it even possible to do so.
And again, In fact, it is probabally impossible to do so (Though, yet again, please, feel free to try)
Now, if there is no such clearly definable "Magic Moment" then the logical conclusion is that "Personhood" must exist from conception.
And while "Most" conceptions fail, for entirely natural reasons, to come to term. Any wilful intervention to end a pregnancy must therere, logically, qualify as an Homicide.
Now, there are plenty of entirely justifiable reasons to commit a Homicide. Homicide is not necessarily either illegal or unjustifiable.
But it is what it is
And you cant just ignore this and claim that it isnt a homicide on the grounds that the "Victim" isn't a person just because they are very small and only half baked!
Oh and another thing. the comparison between an Abortion and that of withdrawing life support from a coma patient are not equivalent
To use a bizarre analogy. There is a very big difference between blowing up a rocket carrying a low earth orbit satellite during the launch phase and blowing the satellite during its final reentry phase a couple of minute before it was going to hit the ground anyway!
Soldato
I would argue it's quite reasonable to view either a heartbeat, brain activity or both of those as quite widely accepted metrics for someone being 'alive'
So to argue that there's no part of the development process that is a 'magic moment' to fit the criteria of 'person' might work for you. If someone is not yet 'alive' then they are not now dead.
If you wanted to create a new law, or create an amendment to laws that says ending the potential to be alive is a crime, then that's different to saying 'Cells would eventually be a person, so I'm going to use this term'
So to argue that there's no part of the development process that is a 'magic moment' to fit the criteria of 'person' might work for you. If someone is not yet 'alive' then they are not now dead.
If you wanted to create a new law, or create an amendment to laws that says ending the potential to be alive is a crime, then that's different to saying 'Cells would eventually be a person, so I'm going to use this term'
I haven't got time to respond to everything been posted, but on this point you are wrong.
A C-section performed before full term is the termination of pregnancy, how is it homicide?
Edit: actually a C-section at any point is the wilful intervention to end a pregnancy.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,080
The problem is you've already loaded the question by saying a fetus is a person.
This medical definition is a pretty accurate description of an embryo/fetus:
Parasite: A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism.
Getting rid of a parasite doesn't sound like a bad thing at all, does it?
Even more so when you look at the problems this parasite can have for the host, including (but not limited to) hypertension, gestational diabetes, anemia, depression, extreme nausea/vomiting, pelvic problems like pubis symphysis disfunction (causing chronic pain) and severe dental problems (enough of a problem that pregnant women get free NHS dental treatment).US/UK abortion laws are based around "viability" - when the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the womb, albeit with medical aid. That used to be considered to be 28 weeks, but it has been adjusted to 24 weeks - that's point where about 50% of babies born may survive with medical assistance, although that in itself is hugely impacted by the quality of care and the weight and sex of the baby, and there's a high risk of disability/developmental problems/health problems. The chance of survival for a 23 week fetus is around 5%, 22 weeks is less than 3% and 21 or less is 0% - generally neonatal units wouldn't provide intensive care for a baby born at 22 weeks, in much the same way that a doctor wouldn't perform extreme methods to resuscitate a 98 year old man.
It may not be a suitable definition of "person" to you, but it is a clear indicator of when the fetus can be a unique individual in it's own right, as opposed to a parasite wholly dependent on the mother. From a legal point of view, birth would seem to be the logical answer - that's when a child exists, therefore becomes a "person" for the purposes of legal documents. If you want other potential options, philosophers and theologians have argued everything from conception, 40 days, during the quickening stages, during the process of birth or the first breath - and pretty much everything inbetween.
Soldato
Its just politics. Like an Italian girl can jump in a car and get one in France, an Alabama gal can jump in her car and drive i dunno 150miles, even less depending on where she's at and get one out of state. It's not as if the entire United States of America has forced this upon all. It's just the Politicians who don't care any more than you or i, just trying to please the bible bashers of that particular area.
Commissario
Well except that for the people that this is most likely to affect they are unlikely to be able to take the time off work and just spend a few hundred dollars to go to another state, especially given many of the states require a mandetory waiting period between consultation with someone and having the proceedure.
This also sort of assumes you're not in a state where the neighbouring states haven't also shut down most of the places that provide abortions, there are IIRC several states with only one or two providers left, so you could be looking at it as being very time consuming and expensive.
Not to mention the younger girls who may not have any income or be old enough to go off on their own for several days.
It's basically a law that will hurt the poorest hardest as you can bet the likes of the politicians who passed this will have no problems funding abortions for their secretary who they've knocked up (as IIRC has turned out to be the case multiple times with hard line anti abortion politicians who paid for, or pushed for the women they've knocked up to have them).
Soldato
Until the foetus can survive independently ex utero it could be argued that it is only a potential life. Indeed, excepting that they are the same species, the foetus fits the definition of a parasite up to that point.
The problem is one can't really know if they will survive without trying, by which time there is no going back.
The problem is one can't really know if they will survive without trying, by which time there is no going back.