"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live >neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related >to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion
Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her
baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of >surviving a pregnancy?
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered
live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The
mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per
100,000 abortion
Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder
her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better
chance of surviving a pregnancy?
According to S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>:
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.
Frequently. Here are a few articles:
https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Davis%20Nancy%2C%20Abortion%20and%20self%20defence.pdf
https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/refuting-abortion-as-self-defense/
(from 1997) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/02/01/abortion-as-self-defense/1cf3aaf4-fe8c-487f-9e80-2f9ab9d30172/
The response from the forced birth crowd seems, as far as I can tell,
to claim it's not really self defense since the fetus doesn't
deliberately intend to harm the woman,
and a lot of innuendo
implying that's not the real reason they want an abortion.
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion
Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of surviving a pregnancy?
So if a mad man were shooting his gun wildly but in your general
direction, would that he doesn't deliberately intend to hurt you be an argument against stopping him, shooting him to death if necessary?
If a reckless driver were speeding through town at 100mph, with no
intention to hurt anyone, just because he thought it was fun, would that
be a reason not to stop him, even with lethal force?
If one was in a burning house, would the fact that the fire doesn't deliberately intend to kill you be an argument against extinguishing the fire.
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion
Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of surviving a pregnancy?
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, S K wrote:probabilitic and medical advances mitigate the threats constantly..
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.Self-defense is considered a NATURAL right and is not in the constitution. Actually the right to be armed stems from the NATURAL right of self-defense in the Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, divorcing it from membership in a militia.
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion
Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of surviving a pregnancy?
the notion that you can kill in self-defense only in response to an IMMINENT threat is just the way self-defense laws are written NOW.
the fetus can cause severe injury/disability/death to the mother at any point during gestation. It must be tested in court whether the mother has an unconditional right to abortion to end the threat to her life, although the threat is only
On 1/4/2023 11:49 AM, S K wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, S K wrote:
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.Self-defense is considered a NATURAL right and is not in the
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live
neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate
related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion
Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her
baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of
surviving a pregnancy?
constitution. Actually the right to be armed stems from the NATURAL
right of self-defense in the Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,
divorcing it from membership in a militia.
the notion that you can kill in self-defense only in response to an
IMMINENT threat is just the way self-defense laws are written NOW.
the fetus can cause severe injury/disability/death to the mother at any
point during gestation. It must be tested in court whether the mother
has an unconditional right to abortion to end the threat to her life,
although the threat is only probabilitic and medical advances mitigate
the threats constantly..
Sorry. I have libertarian leanings myself, but this is
misc.LEGAL.moderated. It's about laws -- the laws of some country, >state/province, city, etc. Even "International Law," which is a loose >collection of treaties that bind countries that sign them, but have no
effect in countries that don't.
You can argue forever about natural rights, but the only law that is going
to be recognized in court is previous rulings ("common law") and statute
law. Statute law can, in some cases, override common law. For example, the >"Castle Doctrine"(1) and "Stand your ground" laws(2) override the Common
Law duty of retreat.
But even in states where the right of self-defense is broadest, you do not >have the right to defend yourself against speculative threats. "Well, he >might attack me next week, so I decided to kill him to prevent that."
(1) Traditionally, you were required to break off from and retreat from a >conflict if you could safely do so. Castle Doctrine says you are not
required to do so when defending your residence against an intruder. Five >states have the original Castle Doctrine, three states extend this to your >workplace, and one extends it to your vehicle.
(2) "Stand your ground" removes the "duty to retreat." If attacked, you can >use force (up to and including lethal force, if needed) to defend yourself >without retreating. All but 13 states now have "stand your ground" laws.
And all but 4 of those have "Castle Doctrine".
Maybe self-defense should extend to possible future threats, but that's not >the way the law is written in any country or state that I'm aware of. In US >law, self-defense is either (a) derived from English common law and/or the
UK "constitution", which itself derives from the Magna Carta, or (b) >specified by the statute law in the state where the alleged crime occurred. >The English common law recognizes a right to defend yourself against an >imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. You cannot use lethal force
to defend yourself against somebody threatening to punch you
AFAIK, no US state recognizes a right to defend yourself against somebody >walking down the sidewalk who *might* suddenly turn on you and kill you.
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the
John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for >mine."
Of course, US courts do not recognize that as a basis for rights, nor do
the courts of any other country that I'm aware of.
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:tp4rm9$2c9ks$7...@dont-email.me...
On 1/4/2023 11:49 AM, S K wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, S K wrote:
"the life of the mother" is a kind-of self-defense exception.Self-defense is considered a NATURAL right and is not in the
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live >>> neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate
related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortion
Can a woman argue that she has a right to choose abortion ("murder her >>> baby" as "pro-lifers" would put it) to give herself a better chance of >>> surviving a pregnancy?
constitution. Actually the right to be armed stems from the NATURAL
right of self-defense in the Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, >> divorcing it from membership in a militia.
the notion that you can kill in self-defense only in response to an
IMMINENT threat is just the way self-defense laws are written NOW.
the fetus can cause severe injury/disability/death to the mother at any
point during gestation. It must be tested in court whether the mother
has an unconditional right to abortion to end the threat to her life,
although the threat is only probabilitic and medical advances mitigate
the threats constantly..
Sorry. I have libertarian leanings myself, but this is >misc.LEGAL.moderated. It's about laws -- the laws of some country, >state/province, city, etc. Even "International Law," which is a loose >collection of treaties that bind countries that sign them, but have no >effect in countries that don't.
You can argue forever about natural rights, but the only law that is going >to be recognized in court is previous rulings ("common law") and statute >law. Statute law can, in some cases, override common law. For example, the >"Castle Doctrine"(1) and "Stand your ground" laws(2) override the Common >Law duty of retreat.
But even in states where the right of self-defense is broadest, you do not >have the right to defend yourself against speculative threats. "Well, he >might attack me next week, so I decided to kill him to prevent that."
(1) Traditionally, you were required to break off from and retreat from a >conflict if you could safely do so. Castle Doctrine says you are not >required to do so when defending your residence against an intruder. Five >states have the original Castle Doctrine, three states extend this to your >workplace, and one extends it to your vehicle.
(2) "Stand your ground" removes the "duty to retreat." If attacked, you can >use force (up to and including lethal force, if needed) to defend yourself >without retreating. All but 13 states now have "stand your ground" laws. >And all but 4 of those have "Castle Doctrine".
Maybe self-defense should extend to possible future threats, but that's not >the way the law is written in any country or state that I'm aware of. In US >law, self-defense is either (a) derived from English common law and/or the >UK "constitution", which itself derives from the Magna Carta, or (b) >specified by the statute law in the state where the alleged crime occurred. >The English common law recognizes a right to defend yourself against an >imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. You cannot use lethal force >to defend yourself against somebody threatening to punch you
AFAIK, no US state recognizes a right to defend yourself against somebody >walking down the sidewalk who *might* suddenly turn on you and kill you.
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never >live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for >mine."
Of course, US courts do not recognize that as a basis for rights, nor do >the courts of any other country that I'm aware of.
The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think
of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not
all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin. That is the
real issue in the abortion debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the debate about reproductive rights and privacy.
--
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the
John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
for mine."
I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month >old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think >of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where >between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin.
On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the
John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
for mine."
um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or >>9-month
old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly
think
of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >>all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill >>to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is
where
between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin.
This sort of argument suffers from assuming its conclusions. While I
will agree that an unfertilized egg is not a person, and a baby about
to have the umbilical cord cut is a person, there is no magic
millisecond where you can say it wasn't a person before and after it
is. The growing embryo and then fetus slowly becomes more like a
person over the course of a pregnancy. At any stage, the answer to
questions whether an abortion is advisable or permissible is "it
depends." Even very close to full term there are occasional horrible >situations where the fetus has defects that means it could not live
very long, and continuing the pregnancy would injure or kill the
woman.
The law is not at all good at making decisions like this, and judges
and legislators are unlikely to have a better understanding of a
situation than the woman and her doctor and her family, despite what
too many forced birth advocates insist.
This is getting pretty far afield from the law.
. For
example, the "Castle Doctrine"(1) and "Stand your ground" laws(2)
override the Common Law duty of retreat.
The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin.
I don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or
9-month old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most
(though clearly not all) people would have no trouble with a woman
taking a morning-after pill to abort an embryo just hours after
conception. The real question is where between 1-day and 9-months does
a human life actually begin. That is the real issue in the abortion
debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the debate about
reproductive rights and privacy.
On 1/5/2023 12:38 PM, RichD wrote:
On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >>> John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
for mine."
um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a >violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of >happiness".
The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the >earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I
don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month >old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think >of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where >between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin. That is the
real issue in the abortion debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the >debate about reproductive rights and privacy.
The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the >earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the
real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I
don't think many people would argue for the right to abort an 8 or 9-month >old fetus that can exist outside the womb. Most people would rightly think >of that as murder. On the other hand, I suspect most (though clearly not >all) people would have no trouble with a woman taking a morning-after pill
to abort an embryo just hours after conception. The real question is where >between 1-day and 9-months does a human life actually begin. That is the
real issue in the abortion debate which unfortunately gets lost in all the >debate about reproductive rights and privacy.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:07:35 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
On 1/5/2023 12:38 PM, RichD wrote:
On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >>>> John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never >>>> live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
for mine."
um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a
violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness".
Does that clause, from the DOI, have any legal standing? I wish it did
but I didn't think so.
My feeling is that, in a free country, a person should be allowed to do anything that doesn't hurt someone else, and thus I think the right to interracial and homosexusal sexual relations and birth control doesn't
depend on a right to privacy, only a right to freedom. -- Abortion on
the other hand does affect someone else.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:13:58 -0800 (PST), "Rick" ><rick@nospam.com> wrote:
The Galt quote (which, by the way, is actually a reworked version of the >>earlier and somewhat similar quote by Howard Roark) does not address the >>real issue in the abortion debate which is when does human life begin. I
I don't understand why everyone says this is the question. The answer
seems obvious. Human life began long ago, 10's of thousands of years
ago, and has continued without interruption ever since.
A more relevant question seems to be, When does a life, a specific human >life, begin? But I have never seen that question asked. It's always
the way you just wrote it, except below you wrote it the way I would
have!
It seems to me a particular human life begins the moment after the sperm >combines with the egg. But I wouldn't call killing it then murder. I >myself don't have a problem with abortion until it's old enough to feel
pain. AFAICT from google, this was never discussed until 7 years ago.
No one seems to have talked about it before 7 years ago and since then, >people rely on doctors to tell them about what is possible.
I don't think it is far afield at all. The law constantly has to wrestle >with issues like this. A similar example is at what point should you >consider a person to legally be an adult. ...
Abortion is no different. Legislators again have to use the best >information they can to come up with a reasonable definition of when life >begins, ...
On 1/6/2023 8:20 AM, micky wrote:
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:07:35 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
On 1/5/2023 12:38 PM, RichD wrote:
On January 4, Barry Gold wrote:Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in >>>>> the
John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will
never
live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live >>>>> for mine."
um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a
violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness".
Does that clause, from the DOI, have any legal standing? I wish it did
but I didn't think so.
My feeling is that, in a free country, a person should be allowed to do
anything that doesn't hurt someone else, and thus I think the right to
interracial and homosexusal sexual relations and birth control doesn't
depend on a right to privacy, only a right to freedom. -- Abortion on
the other hand does affect someone else.
Yes, but that someone else is, in effect, a trespasser.
Note that even if you invite someone into your home, you still have the
right to tell them to leave. Even if it's negative 40 with a blizzard and >40MPH winds outside. A short delay, e.g., to arrange for transport, is >reasonable, but several months is not.
As a philosophical matter, I prefer to base the right to abortion in the >>> John Galt oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never
live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live
for mine."
um, how does that quote relate to abortion?
Those who would ban abortion are forcing the woman to (at least
partially) live her life for the sake of the fetus. I consider this a violation of her basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
I don't think it is far afield at all. The law constantly has to wrestle >>with issues like this. A similar example is at what point should you >>consider a person to legally be an adult. ...
Right, and the answer is "it depends". It's one answer if you want to
drive a car, another if you want to sign a contract, another if you
want to get married, another if you want to leave school, another if
you want to buy booze, another if you want to buy tobacco, and I'm
sure there are a dozen others. Legislatures have figured out that it
would be stupid to make a rule that there is a single moment before
which you are not an adult and after which you are.
Abortion is no different. Legislators again have to use the best >>information they can to come up with a reasonable definition of when life >>begins, ...
Sorry, you're assuming your conclusions again. Unless you mean five
billion years ago when the first proto-bacterium divided, "when life
begins" is a meaningless phrase, no matter how much some forced birth >advocates might wish otherwise.
As I said in the message you quoted, an embryo or fetus slowly becomes
more like a person in various ways as it develops. I can think of a
lot of bad reasons why people might want to impose an arbitrary fixed
time after which a woman loses control of her bodily autononomy, but
no good ones.
It's not meaningless. Virtually everyone agrees that at some point an
embryo becomes a life.
in the same way, you have to set a legal age where an embryo/fetus legally becomes a person.
According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:
It's not meaningless. Virtually everyone agrees that at some point an >>embryo becomes a life.
I may have said this a few times before, but you keep assuming your >conclusions.
While it may well be true that people you know "agree that at some
point an embryo becomes a life" it's not true in general, and more to
the point, even if it were true, which it is not, it is a useless >distinction. Maybe there is a point where a particular fetus is
50.0001% like a person, but we do not know when that point is, and it
is useless to try and identify it for any sort of medical or legal >distinctions.
in the same way, you have to set a legal age where an embryo/fetus legally >>becomes a person.
That's easy: no, you don't.
Even the people who claim that there is such a point don't really
believe it. A few months ago there was a news report about a pregnant
woman in a state with a new fetal personhood law who was stopped for
driving solo in a carpool lane. She argued that under state law there
were two people in the car, the fetus and her. The response from the
cops and the court was "don't be ridiculous." And of course, it was
I may have said this a few times before, but you keep assuming your >>conclusions.
I'm sure if you ....
Then you are basically saying that it should be perfectly legal for a woman >to abort a healthy baby that is about to be born shortly before giving birth >because that baby is not yet a person. ...
It appears that Rick <rick@nospam.com> said:
I may have said this a few times before, but you keep assuming your >>>conclusions.
I'm sure if you ....
[[ yet more assuming conclusions here, not worth repeating ]]
Then you are basically saying that it should be perfectly legal for a
woman
to abort a healthy baby that is about to be born shortly before giving >>birth
because that baby is not yet a person. ...
Wow, all these straw men are going to be a fire hazard.
If the mother to be is an 11 year old girl who was raped by her uncle,
and her body is so small and so frail that she would bleed to death if
she tried to deliver even by C-section, in that horrible case, of
course it should be legal and it has nothing to do with whether the
fetus "is a person". I hope the claim isn't that the fetus is a person
and the girl isn't so the fetus wins.
I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a cruel
fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in fact
everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus "is a
person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just dehumanizes
women and their families and the often very difficult choices they
have to make.
We have had definitions. At common law a fetus wasn't considered a
"person" until it was born and started breathing. Under Roe v. Wade
a fetus got rights separate from its mother's when it was able to
life on its own outside the mother's womb. These days religious
zealots and others on the right want to say that a fetus has superior
rights to those of the mother from the moment it is conceived. That
position is clearly based on religious doctrine, makes no common
sense and can be oppressive and even deadly to women.
....
I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a cruel
fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in fact
everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus "is a
person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just
dehumanizes women and their families and the often very difficult
choices they have to make.
Again, you are misquoting me. I never mentioned theology and I am
in fact not a religious person. Theology is the furthest point
from my mind and I disagree with anyone who says abortion should
be banned on religious grounds. This has nothing to do with
religion. This has to do with the law needing to define some age
where a developing embryo/fetus has developed enough brain
function to be called a living entity deserving of protection. And
yes, it is impossible to be overly precise because different
brains develop differently. But we have to do the best we can
with this based on science and medicine. It is conceptually no
different than defining an arbitrary age in law when a person can
live independently without a guardian.
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a cruel
fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in fact
everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus "is a
person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just
dehumanizes women and their families and the often very difficult
choices they have to make.
Again, you are misquoting me. I never mentioned theology and I am
in fact not a religious person. Theology is the furthest point
from my mind and I disagree with anyone who says abortion should
be banned on religious grounds. This has nothing to do with
religion. This has to do with the law needing to define some age
where a developing embryo/fetus has developed enough brain
function to be called a living entity deserving of protection. And
yes, it is impossible to be overly precise because different
brains develop differently. But we have to do the best we can
with this based on science and medicine. It is conceptually no
different than defining an arbitrary age in law when a person can
live independently without a guardian.
We have had definitions. At common law a fetus wasn't considered a
"person" until it was born and started breathing. Under Roe v. Wade
a fetus got rights separate from its mother's when it was able to
life on its own outside the mother's womb. These days religious
zealots and others on the right want to say that a fetus has superior
rights to those of the mother from the moment it is conceived. That
position is clearly based on religious doctrine, makes no common
sense and can be oppressive and even deadly to women.
It's like the Taliban now. They aren't letting women work or get
educated, and at the same time not allowing women to be treated by
male doctors. So women have no right - or even ability to get - to
medical attention. It seems far away, but we're getting
uncomfortably close to that outselves.
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
I'm not saying there should be no rules at all, but it is a
cruel fantasy to try to draw bright lines in a world where in
fact everything is grey. Setting a single point where a fetus
"is a person", or to inject theology and call it "a life" just >>>>dehumanizes women and their families and the often very
difficult choices they have to make.
Again, you are misquoting me. I never mentioned theology and I
am in fact not a religious person. Theology is the furthest
point from my mind and I disagree with anyone who says abortion
should be banned on religious grounds. This has nothing to do
with religion. This has to do with the law needing to define
some age where a developing embryo/fetus has developed enough
brain function to be called a living entity deserving of
protection. And yes, it is impossible to be overly precise
because different brains develop differently. But we have to do
the best we can with this based on science and medicine. It is
conceptually no different than defining an arbitrary age in law
when a person can live independently without a guardian.
We have had definitions. At common law a fetus wasn't considered
a "person" until it was born and started breathing. Under Roe v.
Wade a fetus got rights separate from its mother's when it was
able to life on its own outside the mother's womb. These days
religious zealots and others on the right want to say that a fetus
has superior rights to those of the mother from the moment it is
conceived. That position is clearly based on religious doctrine,
makes no common sense and can be oppressive and even deadly to
women.
Right - and for me, there is no issue that a newly formed embryo
is not a person and should not have any rights. I don't accept
the religious argument and, as I said, I am not personally
religious. My issue is at the other end - when the embryo is
becoming fully formed in the womb and has brain function. I
maintain my view that most people would not agree that an 8 or
9-month old fetus with full brain function should be protected
from an abortion unless to save the mother's life. I believe late
term babies in the womb are people and need to be protected under
the law. My issue is how far back in the cycle do we give the
unborn child the right to not be aborted. Just as you have to
pick a somewhat arbitrary age for living as an adult without a
guardian (18 seems reasonable), I think lawmakers have a
responsibility to come up with some reasonable age for when a
fetus develops the right not to be aborted.
It's like the Taliban now. They aren't letting women work or get
educated, and at the same time not allowing women to be treated by
male doctors. So women have no right - or even ability to get -
to medical attention. It seems far away, but we're getting
uncomfortably close to that outselves.
Let's hope we don't get to that extreme. To me, protecting
women's rights does not mean ignoring the very real definitional
issue of when the unborn child's rights begin.
--
....I maintain my view that most people would not agree that
an 8 or 9-month old fetus with full brain function should be protected from >an abortion unless to save the mother's life. >
Let's hope we don't get to that extreme.  To me, protecting women's
rights does not mean ignoring the very real definitional issue of when
the unborn child's rights begin.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 353 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 83:23:08 |
| Calls: | 7,639 |
| Files: | 12,802 |
| Messages: | 5,691,861 |