Real questions about pro choice

brashbrother · #1 03-30-2007, 05:01 PM

My argument is this: It is not possible to determine when *exactly* life begins, scientifically, anyway. [If you disagree with this point, please explain].

There are some who have an opinion as to certain biological standards (heart beat, brain activity, etc.), but these have no bearing on the current law that allows abortion in the first trimester. In other words, nothing *biological* happens in week 13 to differentiate a fetus and create a life, but that seems to be the accepted cut-off when the law says it is no longer OK to kill a baby.

1. If you are pro-choice, what is your "cut-off point" after which the mother has no right to take the fetus' life?
2. What is your reasoning?

My suspicion is that many who are Pro Choice have not actually thought this through to the end. They assume that the government must have a reason for the distinction at 13 weeks growth, but have not truly explored what this means.

If you still are not sure what I mean, try working it backwards: At 39 weeks (1 week prior to the due date) mom wants to abort, is this OK? Nope. How about 37 weeks? 35? 30 weeks? OK, how about 24 weeks? 20 weeks? As far as current science knows, no fetus born at 20 weeks can survive outside the womb. But according to our laws, a fetus aborted at 14 weeks gets the mother charged with murder. If she'd done the same thing 2 weeks prior, she's exerting her independence and taking charge of her own body, thank you very much. What gives?

Kimbell175113 · #2 03-30-2007, 05:14 PM

If you sell person X alcohol today, you are engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange of goods for currency, and yet if you had done the same thing a year ago, when person X was under 21, you would have been contributing to juvenile moral decay and committing a crime. What gives?

The law uses arbitrary cutoffs sometimes, that's what gives, and they can change if enough people come to a consensus about it. It's just the best compromise we've achieved, and sometimes that conflicts with people's ideas of morality.

brashbrother · #3 03-30-2007, 05:35 PM

I wasn't really looking for a reason why the law was made. I am asking for your own thoughts on this one.

jogger08152 · #4 03-30-2007, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My argument is this: It is not possible to determine when *exactly* life begins, scientifically, anyway. [If you disagree with this point, please explain].

[/ QUOTE ]
Has science actually defined "life"? Are viruses alive? How about prions? Or the 2000-year-old seed of a long-dead date tree? (As an aside, I found the last sentence of the second paragraph of this article especially savory. Who said scientists don't believe in Resurrection?)

As far as whether a conceptus is alive, the least arbitrary moment I can think of is whenever its genetic material is distinct from that of both its mother and its father and is also indistinguishable from that of an adult.

[ QUOTE ]
1. If you are pro-choice, what is your "cut-off point" after which the mother has no right to take the fetus' life?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not, but if you accept the viability argument, an abortion anytime in the first 12 trimesters should be fine. The conceptus can survive outside the womb for varying amounts of time depending on how early you go (EG first trimerster and a half, the time is only moments, whereas during the 11th trimester, it might survive 3-4 days), but a hundred hours' difference seems pretty academic to me.

[ QUOTE ]
2. What is your reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]
Same as with all (maybe this is inflated: counterexamples?) non-medically-necessitated abortions: convenience. As indicated above, I rationalize this figure based upon the viability argument, since people seem to find this palatable (and, therefore, plausible).

jogger08152 · #5 03-30-2007, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you sell person X alcohol today, you are engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange of goods for currency...

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad example. (In at least some cases.)

chezlaw · #6 03-30-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you still are not sure what I mean, try working it backwards: At 39 weeks (1 week prior to the due date) mom wants to abort, is this OK? Nope. How about 37 weeks? 35? 30 weeks? OK, how about 24 weeks? 20 weeks?

[/ QUOTE ]
and then work backwards to the mass-murder you commit everytime you let a gazillion sperm die.

Then castrate yourself.

chez

Kimbell175113 · #7 03-30-2007, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you sell person X alcohol today, you are engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange of goods for currency...

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad example. (In at least some cases.)

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I think you know what I mean. Just because there's no 'natural' cutoff point doesn't mean that an arbitrary one can't work (better than none at all). The law IS important in this case, because it's the thing we all have to live with. My opinion doesn't matter, but the law does.

brashbrother · #8 03-30-2007, 06:51 PM

Jogger,

First important distinction: a Trimester is 13 weeks. Avg pregnancy is about 40 weeks, or roughly 3 trimesters; hence the "tri" part. Second: "Life" in this case is determined by the law to exist at 13 weeks, and (arbitrarily) to not exist at 12 weeks. As in, the taking of a life being murder, the removal of a 12 week fetus being "not murder."

All,

I agree that this is an arbitrary distinction by the courts. In fact, I wanted to emphasize that point. My question to this forum, is that since we consider ourselves to be educated and reasonable, were it not for the law, what point would we set up as OK to abort/not OK to abort?

It seems as if some of you are saying, that Abortion HAS to be OK somehow, so we just have to choose a date and go with it. Is that really your stance? Please correct me if I misunderstood.

Sorry for the confusion, if I mis-stated my original questions. (Don't think I did, but the posts were getting off target).

jogger08152 · #9 03-30-2007, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jogger,

First important distinction: a Trimester is 13 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read my post more carefully.

[ QUOTE ]
Second: "Life" in this case is determined by the law to exist at 13 weeks, and (arbitrarily) to not exist at 12 weeks. As in, the taking of a life being murder, the removal of a 12 week fetus being "not murder."

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the very first paragraph of your own post more carefully, too.

Prodigy54321 · #10 03-30-2007, 07:07 PM

I started a similar thread a while back

making decisions as to a solid cutoff when there are no demarcation points is one of the hardest thing for my mind to grapple..but these decisions must be made and they are made.

the age for the emancipation of children is equally or probably even more arbitrary than the abortion one.

the fact that there is no demarcation point in a person's life does not make it logical that we emancipate children as soon as they are born...(or concieved)

that is not to say that there aren't good reasons why conception should be a good point to consider a being to have full rights and priveleges...but the simple fact that there are no demarcation points thereafter is not enough to exclude other possibilities.