The Right To Kill?

it seems like common sense to me, but somewhere on one of these blogs someone mentioned that common sense isn't that common.

Another great post, Scottie.

I've been wanting to post the lyrics to a King's X song, but haven't gotten around to it. I think I will now and link your post to it. That is, if you don't mind.

I welcome any cross pollination you feel is appropriate. My conclusion is the only intellectually honest assessment I can make.

Drop by when you want.

You just don't understand though. This rides on rails.
1. Sex is a recreational sport without emotional, legal, or biological ramifications allowed. It feels good and EVERYONE should participate. Kids? Sure. Need the little blue pill? OK.
2. Unfortunately, sex can result in babies. Therefore, this is unfair and we need everything possible available so as to not change point 1.
3. Punishment for sex crimes to children is unfair. Sex is fun, why deny 2 year olds their fun?
4. Sex is political because anyone who denies anyone the right to the joys of sex is both a religious biggot and (likely) a Republican.

(the author of this note denys any agreement with the sentiment in the note. It is done for instructive purposes of the opinions of people with whom he disagrees)

You been visiting the NAMBLA site? Again?! :-)

I was hoping for a little bit higher level of discourse on the subject. Now post something intelligent and redeem yourself.

It is on a very high level. There is a large group in this country on the left who actually feel that way. Senior ethicists in universities tell us things like this. Judges put pedophiles on probation rather than jail.

The basic conceptual framework is that "if it feels good do it" and "sex feels good".

I cannot count the number of scholarly articles discussing how young children as young as 1-2 get sexual gratification and that is good.

Hollywierd is sex obsessed and has this as a driving force. Unfortunately, the liberals are buying this as well. And it has to stop.

I see your points, and they are good ones. A little broader in scope, perhaps; but all valid and worthy of discussion.

Sex is inextricably tied to the prime directive: be fruitful and multiply. Our first purpose is to insure the survival of humanity.

That this primordial drive has been usurped and turned to base purposes, particularly for entertainment, is indisputable. Thoughts readers?

Power. Power can be defined in many ways, but for this discussion I'll define power as lack of accountability. The more power an individual or group accumulates the less accountability they will have and vice versa. For instance, if I have absolute power, then, in essence, I have zero accountability for my actions. I can do whatever I want, whenever I want.

If I have a great deal of power, but not quite absolute, then I will be somewhat accountable for my actions, but not as much as someone with less power...think Kofi Annan in the first instance and a gas station attendant in the second.

If there is one thing history has shown us it is that man is in constant pursuit of power, or put another way, the freedom from accountability. Man will do anything for power. Man will even reject logic. In fact man will often hold views that are 180 degrees apart if they can accumulate power.

For instance if we were about to demolish a building and I approached the demo team and told them I just saw a kid run into the building they would halt the demo until they were 100% sure it was empty. In the above example we would probably halt the demo if an animal were believed to be in the building. Yet the same people would be willing to abort a fetus despite not being absolutely sure that the fetus was a living being.

What about congress? All they have to do is define the fetus as a person and it would then be protected. Why don't they do so? I believe they don't because in their lack of action they derive some power by bestowing power on 50% of the population.

We have laws that make it a crime to kill a fetus in the womb yet abortion is still legal. The fetus has rights protecting it from harm against all others except a willing mother and doctor. Again, why would such a great number of people be willing to abandon logic and principle?

With that in mind I think about abortion. Outlawing abortion is taking away a woman's power to choose. By forcing the carraige of a fetus and the subsequent delivery of a baby, society would be holding women accountable for their actions. Withholding power, making them more accountable than man, makes them a defacto second class citizen and they don't like it...regardless of the logic. You see when I claimed man was in constant pursuit of power I meant man in general and was not being gender specific.

It's for all these reasons above that I think we are where we are today.

Good post and well stated. I take exception to only one item.

"Withholding power, making them more accountable than man, makes them a defacto second class citizen and they don't like it..."

For this to be true, men would have to be allowed to kill fetuses while women could not. I agree it's a power issue, and the women have an unequal amount under the current rules; and are loathe to give it up.

It is nonsense to say that abortion rights empower women. There are many pro-life women. Women are not loathe to give up abortion. Giving up abortion does not make women second class citizens.


-Susan B. Anthony and other early women's rights activists were active pro-lifers of their time.

-There was a time when women were considered chattel. This position was "justified" because they were smaller, weaker, etc. For people to justify the destruction of the unborn because they are smaller, less capable, etc. is the same injustice.

-Most of the victims of abortion in India, for example, are female fetuses. This is the ultimate in misogyny, made easier by the availability of abortion.

-Men are required to register for the draft. They make up the majority of the military who sacrifice their safety, conveniences, comforts, lives, etc. They don't control their bodies, or their destinies in these circumstances. Considering this why should we women feel so indignant by having to take on the burdens of pregnancy?

Welcome to the Heartland.

Unfortunately there is a powerful minority that has managed to usurp the true rights of most women (and the unborn) through the courts.

I couldn't agree with you more on the points you've made. Let me add, there is a certain irony that abortion "rights" came AFTER women had widely available birth control. With the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy available, why are so many abortions necessary?

Come back and share your thoughts; you are welcome here.

..the most important Universal fact: Women have the greatest responsibility to Mankind; bearing children. It should not be taken lightly.

Abstinence works all the time (except for once that I know of).

I agree, 'nuf said.

I followed the argument at A Different Conservatism Blog (Different as in Not Conservative) but the blogger is just unhinged and beyond debating. Between our posts they managed to make it to the What's Hot List at TH! And they still can't face the primary question. I gave up.

http://dcon.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=2bc04e32-d84c-4b32-a9dc-5b9691941b03

...don't worry about that fool. After reading his tripe about killing a week old (outside Mom's womb) child, discussion was over.

A lot of times, you may find, some people state such bile for ulterior motives, presumably to discredit true conservatism.

Assuming he is being truthful, let's hope his offspring sees the Light.

Onward Christian Soldiers!

I had to concede. It wasn't a debate, more of a stream of conscience trope of evasions. Singapore, Catholic Church, Paternity tests, anything but to explain under what conditions is it OK to kill an innocent human being?

I gave up. I think it's a feminist with an "education" in women's studies and no real intellectual capacity. Convinced they're right, but utterly unable to defend why they think so because they never had to think, just absorb and parrot.

Well, I'm floating around tonight reading other people's blogs. This one you wrote is a good subject. For some reason it seems particularly poignant at this time of year. With Christmas and all the joy we get watching our children and grandchildren on Christmas.

I do not know how anyone can abort a baby. And, that is what that "thing" is, a baby. This abortion issue has incensed me since the Roe vs.Wade decision in which none of us had a voice.

I suppose liberals can anesthetize themselves by calling the baby a fetus, a clump of cells, whatever. The truth is it is a child. And, it is murder as far as I am concerned. I don't care what activist judges said it was OK, it is not.

These same liberals who endorse abortion fight for the right of some condemned murderer on death row to have his life spared, but think nothing of killing a baby. No logical sense to this.

I'm a Catholic so abortion has always been considered murder by the church. But, in a former life I was also a nurse. And, becoming a nurse and studying microbiology, anatomy, etc. there is no way you could come to the conclusion that this is not a human being. I don't know how those doctors and nurses who assist abortions can live with themselves.

I guess the real conundrum is how do we change this situation? I know that sonograms are becoming more and more sophisticated. So one day there will be no way a mother can look at a sonogram and say "this is a clump of cells". The ever growing technology will put an end to that at some future date.

And just last week while I'm on this rant, I believe the right for a mother to know exactly what happens with the baby when she aborts was struck down by the courts. There seems to be no end to the madness. Where does it stop? No parent notification for children having abortions.

I remember when my granddaughter was born, I looked at her and I thought,(inexplicably) about women who abort. I looked at my granddaughter who was the most beautiful child I had ever laid eyes on and thought what if this child had been aborted by someone? Look at this child? She's precious beyond belief. I couldn't stop looking at her, the wonder, the perfection of this child.
Who would ever want to rid themselves of something this precious?

It just tore me up thinking about it. I don't know why I thought that when I did. Just one of those weird thoughts one gets at times.

Well, Scottie, you have a Merry Christmas and enjoy. God bless you.

It's not that hard to understand, is it? I'm a guy and I get it. How is it possible for a woman not to get it?

I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

I followed that link after I posted to your blog.
That poster einhvr or whatever, some strange name, is a flaming liberal and usually posts really weird stuff. The Singapore thing was so unbelievable, to base your argument on what they do.

One other thing I felt like I wanted to address since that poster brought up the Catholic Church and out of wedlock pregnancies as the church calls it.

It is frowned upon of course and a girl will be removed from school for a pregnancy, but she is well taken care of by the nuns in special homes they run for this happening. The girl continues to get her schooling in the home. Then, after the child is born, the girl and her family either keep the child, or the baby is put up for adoption.

So at least the girl has this alternative if the family disowns her. It's sad but this happens sometimes.

The point that escapes this person is that the benefit derived by society as a whole is greater than the suffering it may cause. That is the reason unwed pregnancy is stymtized. If society clearly communicates that there are consequences for unwanted behavior like unwed parenting, there is much less of it to deal with.

and a blessed new year to all. God bless you and your family in this holy season.

Your friend, AnneMarie.

..you are a wonderful addition to Our community and We are better for ya. Thank you for your time composing your entertaining and thoughtful posts here at the "Heartland Patriot."

The Absolute Best to you and your family, my friend.

I can't wait to see what the next year brings Us.

Be safe.

Gearge Strait:

"So, Here's a Meeeeeeeeeeery Christmas Strait to Yooooooou!!"

Thank you young lady, I appreciate your kind words and wishes. God Bless You and Yours.

Sing for me Jimmy! What a pal! God Bless You My Friend.

Roe-v-Wade was a cowardly and fundamentally flawed decision because it failed to address the most important question that is the keystone to the abortion debate:

At what point in a pregnancy does a conceptus become a human being?

Rather than admit that this is not a question to be answered by the courts at all and send it back to the people where it belonged, the Supremes skirted the issue - and the skirts they hid behind were fabricated out of the whole cloth of their ad hoc "supreme" right to privacy. I'm no lawyer, but in my book, a human being's right to life trumps privacy every time.

Clearly, from the moment of conception, an embryo is a genetically distinct and complete, human life form. It also has, if left undisturbed, the strong potential to develop into a born person. Most honest people will agree to these things. But what most people will never agree to (even the honest ones) is the point at which it becomes developed enough to merit the most important rights of a person, specifically the right to life.

Some honestly believe that the human soul enters at conception and defines personhood. Others just as honestly believe that personhood doesn't come until the first breath is drawn. Still others look to the beating heart or any number of other equally arbitrary and personally valid measures of humanity. To some it is a matter of faith. To others it is a matter of science. But all that *is* certain is that we are collectively uncertain about the exact point at which to set the bar.

What to do?

Let the people decide. Pole the people to determine two key time points where, in each case, two thirds agree: 1) the point before which a fetus is most definitely is not a human being; and 2) the point beyond which it most definitely is. Maybe this will correspond to the end of the first trimester and the beginning of the third trimester. Maybe it will turn out to be three weeks and three months (or less), but let the people decide.

What to do with the middle zone would be up to the Individual States to work out. But before the first time point (where the baby would come into legal existence), abortion would strictly be a protected individual decision. Beyond the second time point fetal life would *generally* be protected on par with the life of any other person. A note to all you genius debaters out there, "generally protected" means that, yes, the fetus could be sacrificed to save the life of the mother, but it would merit a full blown investigation just like any other possibly suspicious death or potential murder. It also means that the reluctant gestator / mother could have the baby removed early (i.e. born or transferred) if it could be so done without undue risk to the baby's life.

By the way, the "woman's body held hostage by the evil fetus" argument is completely blown out of the water as long as a small, but reasonable abortion opportunity window were to exist after a possible "conception event." Claiming unintended conception may be believable. Claiming ongoing, unintended gestation is not.

If conservative America is really is majority, mainstream America, then the above democratic process might well result in total protection of a baby's right to life from conception onwards. Personally, I think the two key time points would end up at about 6 weeks and 18 weeks, but I would support any truly democratic decision of The People on this issue, whatever it turned out to be.

Think well - see clearly :)

There is no legitimate "window" in which it is acceptable to murder an innocent human being. That train leaves the station when conception occurs within a womb capable of carrying it to term. There is no point after that that the unborn is anything less than an innocent human being under construction. To argue otherwise is sophistry.

I'm not arguing convenience; I'm arguing right and wrong and the sanctity of human life. In the age of widely available birth control and sex education, there is no excuse for this ongoing genocide.

And it won't be morally acceptable even if a majority says so. This practice is just as reprehensible as slavery. If a vote is to have any meaning, who is voting on behalf of the innocent victims of this barbarity?

Think right vs. wrong, not what will offend the fewest people, Thinkwell.And then think well.

of cynide in your food you would put to a vote? You can't just demand none because I think people that would kill the unborn deserve a triple lethal dose (maybe I'm just evil). So let's compromise then, and end all this arguing. Just put half of what I demand in your food. That is much better. And you're happy now because everyone agreed. This is the kind of Faustian bargain you are proposing, Thinkwell.

There can be no compromise on the intentional killing of innocent humans; just as there can be no compromise on how much poison you are willing to ingest. In negotiations with evil, good always loses.

Scottie,

I appreciate and respect your conviction. I also know that there are people who truly believe that a fetus is not a person until born. My leanings are much more in line with yours, and I would be perfectly happy if your way were the law, but I recognize that others have a legitimate right to their views up until the point where it can be legally proven that a fetus is a true person. Beyond that, it is opinion (heartfelt, honest opinion to be sure, but only opinion). This is a very contentious issue which can only (in my view) be decided by the democratic process (a very flawed solution, but wa-ay better than any alternative).

You must see that anything else could only be by the force of tyrannical, physical power (much like the Taliban). Why is your way any more legitimate that the way of a leftist, right-to-choose zealot? What if he or she has bigger guns?

Think well - see clearly.

Let us be clear here. Can we stipulate to the fundamental case here? A woman has conceived "something" in a womb capable of bringing it to term through voluntary behavior.

I'm waiting to hear a compelling argument that this "something" is anything other than a human child. If it weren't, it wouldn't develop into one and the woman's body would reject it.

I posit that this "something" is in fact a human child based on the following verifiable facts: It looks exactly like every other human child at that stage of development. Left to its own destiny, it will develop into a human child. The woman's body reponds exactly like every other pregnant woman's body. Leaving invitro aside for the moment (remember "in a womb capable of carrying it to term"), this is how every other human being has come into existence. It is in fact a human child and nothing less. The woman getting an abortion is PREGNANT with a human baby.

As for invitro, let us leave that argument for another day. This is a paradox. The important distinction here is that very few abortions occur in the aggregate as a result, and this is not central to the argument here. I would like to take up this subject at some other time, but in the present context, it is a distraction.

If there is a compelling case to the contrary, I'm certainly willing to hear it. But just because someone doesn't "believe" something is true, doesn't mean it isn't (Is the earth still flat? Was it ever?). Where is the scientific argument that this "something" is anything less than a human baby? How else does one legally prove the matter? Why does the left insist on worshipping "science" when it comes to evolution, yet switch to "belief" on abortion?

I believe my argument is better because it is based on fact and clear logical reasoning. Further, shouldn't the doubt, if there is any, turn in favor of protecting the unborn child? Shouldn't the burden for making the case that it is not a human baby be placed squarely on the shoulders of those that wish to abort? Shouldn't the standard of proof be a little higher than "belief?"

It is not a tyranny to hold people accountable for their behavior, sorry. While the word tyranny appeals powerfully to emotion, it does nothing to refute the facts. As such, it is not an argument as much as it is a smokescreen. I reject this transparent appeal to passion.

BTW I am enjoying our exchange. I respect your points, but feel they don't hold up on close examination. This discussion allows for a much deeper examination of the issue. Do continue, please.

I have to agree with Scottie; choice ends when you concieve. Now, I believe that a child is produced when implantation occurs not at the joining of the egg and sperm, but that is not really germane to the disussion...I just wanted to let you know where I am coming from. But, for all of those talking about choice; why did the woman choose to engage in an act that could end in pregnancy? And what about the man's ability to choose? Should we not be allowed to choose the life of our children over our personal comforts? What about us that would love to raise our children, on our own if need be, to choose to be parents? When did "choice" become a one way street?

The links below show the human embryo right before it develops enough to be considered a fetus. This is 9 weeks post conception.

http://www.babycenter.com/general/1498230
http://www.babycenter.com/mybabycenter/109.html

I'm okay with a 9 week old embryo having no rights at all, but I realize that is just my personal opinion and others may differ.

Look at back at the 4 week old embryo. It is a tiny speck of barely differentiated cells that has no real nervous system, let alone a brain. It is much smaller and less developed than a tadpole and, to the ordinary layperson, is indistinguishable from any other equally gestated mammalian embryo.

It is for these reasons that I believe a clear majority of people would definitely consider aborting a 4 week old embryo to rightfully be a private decision (even though many would be personally against it and believe it immoral on religious grounds).

For the sake of argument, assume that by national referendum, 70 percent of voters expressed that view. Of course, these same people would nearly all believe intentionally killing a person to be wrong (murder in most cases), so they clearly could not believe a 4 week old human embryo to yet be a person (for example, in its tiny life it has yet to remotely look, act, think or feel pain like a normal born person).

Assuming the people had so decided, you as an individual would still be free to never have an abortion, but would you be prepared to use physical force or violence to stop others from excising their own legal right to choose one for themselves? That is one step beyond civil disobedience that I would not be willing to take.

How would you convince your fellow citizens that they had erred and that a person exists from the moment of conception (if that is indeed what you believe)?

By the way, if the voters were to decide to ban abortion altogether, I would have no problem accepting the will of the people.

The key question here is, "At what point does the conceptus become a person?" because, if it is not yet a person, then abortion at that point can only be a private, completely individual decision (since no other person's rights would be violated). How can you or any other individual be so arrogant as to presume to decide for others what defines the boundaries of an emergent person? What other reasonable way is possible besides by an informed vote of the people?

Think well - see clearly. :)

Thinkwell: "I'm okay with a 9 week old embryo having no rights at all, but I realize that is just my personal opinion and others may differ."

Thinkwell: "Look at back at the 4 week old embryo. It is a tiny speck of barely differentiated cells that has no real nervous system, let alone a brain. It is much smaller and less developed than a tadpole and, to the ordinary layperson, is indistinguishable from any other equally gestated mammalian embryo."

Scottie: But, are you willing to state that a 4 or 9 week old embryo is not a human being? Whether or not you would grant it rights or recognize it has rights, isn't it really just another human being at a different stage of development? Left to develop, it's not going to become anything else is it? You do realize that you and every human being that has ever lived was once a 1,2,3,4 . . .9 week old embryo? If you are a human being now, weren't you a human being then? Your own development looked exactly like the ones you've posted. When exactly did YOU become a human being, Thinkwell?


Thinkwell: "How would you convince your fellow citizens that they had erred and that a person exists from the moment of conception (if that is indeed what you believe)?"

Scotte: I have no desire to evade the issue by redefining the term "human being" to "person". I believe a human being that has been conceived in a womb capable of carrying it to term is just that, a human being and nothing less. "Personhood" is a subjective standard; "Human" is an objective standard. If it will eventually be a human being, shouldn't we presume that it already is? If you are wrong, we've killed an innocent baby. If I am wrong, at what point do I become right? If I can convince people to face the true gravity of the situation; the answer naturally follows.

Since we're discussing the life or death of what will most certainly become a human being; at what point is it in fact a human being? That is the fundamental question. You seek to avoid this question by changing it to "When do we oficially recognize that this is a human?" or "When do we grant a human being rights?"; most notably the most fundamental right of all, that of life itself. Are you stating that a 4 or 9 week old embryo is not a human being; or that it is, but just doesn't have any rights yet?

If it is not yet a human being, when will it become one?

If it is a human being, by what right does one arbitrarily kill it?

Scottie: Are you stating that a 4 or 9 week old embryo is not a human being; or that it is, but just doesn't have any rights yet?

My position on emergent human life is thus: a 4 or 9 week old embryo (or even a single cell zygote) is a unique individual human organism in that it possesses its own separate, complete DNA, and, left undisturbed, has the strong potential to develop into, in turn, a human being and a born person.

Scottie: If it is a human being, by what right does one arbitrarily kill it?

It is not yet a human being. As long as this is the case, the woman has the right to have it destroyed like any other unwanted growth or foreign organism on or within her body.

Scottie: If it is not yet a human being, when will it become one?

Even if you could get everyone to thoroughly study all the scientific, religious and philosophical works on this subject (including all visual evidence), I am convinced there would still be a wide range of honest answers to this question. That is why I suggest that we pole the people to determine two key time points where, in each case, two thirds agree:

1) the point before which an embryo/fetus is most definitely is not a human being, and

2) the point beyond which it most definitely is.

Maybe this will correspond to the end of the first trimester and the beginning of the third trimester. Maybe it will turn out to be three weeks and three months (or much less), but let the people decide.

Before the first time point (where a baby would come into legal existence), abortion would strictly be a private, individual decision.

Beyond the second time point fetal life would *generally* be protected on par with the life of any other person. Here, "generally protected" means that, yes, the fetus could be sacrificed to save the life of the mother, but doing so would merit a full blown investigation just like any other possibly suspicious death or potential murder. It also means that the reluctant gestator / mother could have the baby removed early (i.e. born or transferred) if it could be so done without undue risk to the baby's life.

What to do with the middle zone would be best left up to the Individual States to work out.

As bad as it is, there is no better way.

And with that, we've come full circle. Unless you have something new to add, there's probably not much point in going further rounds with this topic (I hope it was a pleasant and edifying exchange).

Think well - see clearly. :)

between a human organism and a human being?

Thank you for a very lively and honest exchange. I think you are a tremendous politician; no doubt you would do well in that field should you go into it.

Some things in life, and in particular life itself, tend to be absolutes in the eyes of many. On this issue, I cannot compromise in good faith. I believe life begins at conception. If this occurs in a womb capable of carrying it, I believe a human life has begun and the rest is simply development. I arrived at this position through a long assessment of it, and in a way that is true to my own intellectual code.

I appreciate your valiant effort to reach out to me and to find some measure of compromise and common ground, and I commend you for it. I honor your effort and your intellect. I hope you have gained as much from our exchange as I have. Let us agree that we disagree here. I've enjoyed myself and look forward to our next encounter.

Your Friend always and Adversary sometimes,
Scottie

I'm sure that in your insistence that "choice" is the issue, you demand that the baby is given a choice in the matter (unlike the Pro-choice Nazis whose victims were not given a choice).

I am decidedly not "Pro Choice" as I believe a human life begins when conception occurs within a womb capable of carrying it to term. To me this is the defining moment at which human life begins. After that, abortion is nothing less than killing a human being.

To terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother is completely valid. Terminating a life conceived against the will of the mother, while disturbing, is also just. These exceptions however, justify comparitively few of the over 40 Million abortions that have been perfomed in this country.

If your point is that the human being in the womb is being denied a choice in the matter, I think that is 100% correct.

Scottie: To terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother is completely valid.

That typically is a "no brainer" because the death of the mother would terminate the pregnancy anyway. But there are exceptions. :)

What if the baby is near term and completely viable? If the mother were in a car crash and injured in such a way that on-the-spot emergency treatment could only save the life of mother or child, why would the mother's life be more worthwhile? Saving the baby would more likely result in greater life-years saved. Perhaps the mother is more of a "being" (whatever that is) than is the fetus. :):)

Scottie: Terminating a life conceived against the will of the mother, while disturbing, is also just.

Once the fetus has become a "being" (whatever that is), why should its rights depend in anyway on the circumstances under which it was conceived? A life is a life, is it not? What's wrong with adoption? Some would say that the baby is a completely innocent child of God. It certainly did not rape its mother - why should it suffer a death sentence for the crimes of its biological father?

Scottie: What is the difference between a human organism and a human being?

Good question. :)

Emb|Adu|Characteristic of being (whatever that is)
[ ] [x] thinking (Emb = early human embryo)
[ ] [x] reasoning (Adu = human adult)
[ ] [x] rational
[ ] [x] intelligent
[ ] [x] self sufficient
[ ] [x] self-aware (conscious of itself)
[ ] [x] generally capable of reflection
[ ] [x] having a thoughts and identity that persists through time
[ ] [x] ability to steer one's attention and action purposively
[ ] [x] has plans, goals, desires, hopes, fears, etc.
[ ] [x] ability to feel pain
[ ] [x] brain functional (EEG present)
[ ] [x] has a brain
[x] [x] own complete, unique DNA
[x] [x] actual or potential "beingness"
[x] [x] soul (for the Faithful among us)

Think well - see clearly :)

PS: Consider the case of the complete, but undeveloped vestigial twin. All the parts may be there, brain included, but frozen in time at the fetal stage. In some cases such an internal, vestigial Siamese twin may take up its faltered development when its normal sibling's body is flooded with the hormones of adolescence. Is this "twin" a being and, if so, does it have any right to life? (Often these "beings" are surgically removed and destroyed.)

Thinkwell: "What if the baby is near term and completely viable? If the mother were in a car crash and injured in such a way that on-the-spot emergency treatment could only save the life of mother or child, why would the mother's life be more worthwhile? Saving the baby would more likely result in greater life-years saved. Perhaps the mother is more of a "being" (whatever that is) than is the fetus."

Scottie: Creating such an unlikely hypothetical would indicate to me that you cannot rebut the actual case. Do you wish to change the subject to something so esoteric (and improbable) as to be non-existent, or virtually so? This is sophistry, not argument. This is a medical decision for an emerency room doctor and does not further the debate. We're talking about over forty million abortions; how many do you really think match this hypothetical? My guess -- ZERO,


Thinkwell: "Once the fetus has become a "being" (whatever that is) . . ."

Scottie: Perhaps your inability to grasp the concept of "being" lies at the heart of the problem. Do you truly not understand the concept, or are you simply being provocative? I suspect the latter. Claiming ignorance is hardly an effective method of persuasion. Or perhaps, you are simply mocking my position? Again, hardly convincing. To state my position properly, perhaps "Once the being becomes a recognizable fetus . . ." would more accurate. I've grown to expect better than this out of you, Thinkwell.


Thinkwell:' . . , why should its rights depend in anyway on the circumstances under which it was conceived? A life is a life, is it not? What's wrong with adoption? Some would say that the baby is a completely innocent child of God. It certainly did not rape its mother - why should it suffer a death sentence for the crimes of its biological father?

Scottie: The rights of the unborn do not supercede the woman's right to justice. I am disturbed at the death of a child under these circumstances. I am also disturbed by the alternative; further traumatizing a crime victim. On this basis, I think there is justification for the death penalty for the rapist. This unborn life is clearly his responsibility alone. You have abandoned your original position. Is this because you can no longer support it, or are you simply being provocative?


Thinkwell: [Scottie]
(Emb = early human embryo)/(Adu = human adult)
Emb|Adu|Characteristic of being (whatever that is) [there's that argument of professed ignorance again]
[ ] [x] thinking [So retarded people aren't beings?]
[ ] [x] reasoning [ibid]
[ ] [x] rational [ibid] + Pro Choice advocates (sorry, cheap shot)
[ ] [x] intelligent [ibid]
[ ] [x] self sufficient [so retarded and handicapped people aren't beings?]
[ ] [x] self-aware (conscious of itself) [comatose people aren't beings?]
[ ] [x] generally capable of reflection [stroke victims are no longer beings?]
[ ] [x] having a thoughts and identity that persists through time [accident victims and amnesiacs?]
[ ] [x] ability to steer one's attention and action purposively [comatose and stroke victims?]
[ ] [x] has plans, goals, desires, hopes, fears, etc. [ibid]
[ ] [x] ability to feel pain [plants are beings, comatose people are not?]
[ ] [x] brain functional (EEG present) [how could one tell inutereau?]
[ ] [x] has a brain [both have one, one just isn't fully developed yet]
[x] [x] own complete, unique DNA [WE AGREE! WOW]
[x] [x] actual or potential "beingness" [we disagree, both are actual, period]
[x] [x] soul (for the Faithful among us) [while I agree, this is a theological argument]

Scottie: You have unwittingly stumbled upon the crux of the matter. In cheapening the lives of the unborn, you cheapen all life. It's a very short step from here to euthanasia. Given the thrust of your criteria above, many people currently protected find that they are no longer "beings" in light of your logic. See the neon sign ahead? This way to the Brave New World!


Thinkwell: Consider the case of the complete, but undeveloped vestigial twin. All the parts may be there, brain included, but frozen in time at the fetal stage. In some cases such an internal, vestigial Siamese twin may take up its faltered development when its normal sibling's body is flooded with the hormones of adolescence. Is this "twin" a being and, if so, does it have any right to life? (Often these "beings" are surgically removed and destroyed).

Scottie: More sophistry, how disappointing. You are describing an actual being, true. But again, you are bringing up another exception that proves the rule. Apparently you cannot stay on the subject of abortion and wish to steer the conversation into esoterica. What you describe is a single being with a developmental problem, all parts from a single act of conception. I'm surprised you didn't stoop to chimeras, another esoteric argument that avoids the issue under discussion.

A woman voluntarily engages in sexual behavior that results in conception within a womb capable of carrying it to term. Is it a human being? I say yes. Is it OK to kill it? I say no. No matter how far you go afield with hypotheticals and abnormalities, these are the central facts. You can argue the semantics of the word "being" if you wish, but I find your arguments unpersuasive. Think again, think better!

Scottie, the subject of my prior post was the nature of "beingness", specifically human beingness. This subject is *not* the same as the abortion question, although it is central to it. Perhaps I was being too subtle, but my point was that the determinant essence of human beingness, i.e., the exact dividing line that separates a person from a non-person is (and probably always will be) an open question.

To that question, scientists will give you nearly as many answers as there are scientists. Same for philosophers. Even many religions draw a fuzzy line as well, and the ones that do try to draw a hard and fast line don't draw it all in the same place.

Abortion is such a contentious issue precisely because there is no unique, universally agreed upon answer to this central question of humanity, and, no matter where the line is drawn, some of those standing on either side of it will see an unjust, very real concession of fundamental rights. You, Scottie, may not be the least bit fuzzy about where you draw your own line, but others don't share your certainty, or, if they do, may boldly draw their own lines miles from yours (and each other's).

For you to *arbitrarily* shackle them with your beliefs at the point of a government gun would be tyranny (like the tyranny we now suffer under Roe v. Wade). General consensus on the abortion issue is simply not possible.

The democratic process (which we, as citizens, have all agreed to abide by) is the only fair means by which can come to a governing agreement on this extremely polemical social puzzle.

I am willing to put the question squarely to the people and abide by their (our) democratic decision, whatever it may be. Are you?

Think well and hard -- see clearly. :)

PS: My very wild guess is that a true vote of the people would result in something like unrestricted abortion rights for the first six weeks and mandatory murder investigations from four months on. YMMV

You are absolutely correct in your post. We will never reach total consensus as a nation. There will be winners and there will be losers no matter the decision, on that we can both agree.

However, I have provided a logical argument and an objective non-theological definition of the beginning of human life. For all of our discussion it has not been refuted. It has simply been rejected without a better one offered in its place. I feel my definition is correct based on logic, fairness, and justice.

Ochams Razor postulates that the simplist solution is most likely to be the correct solution. To that end, I have provided what I believe to be the definition of when life begins in the simplist, most direct manner possible. Once conception occurs in an womb capable of nurturing it to term is the singular absolute locus of humanity. All other definitions will suffer unnecessary complication, as all of those you put forth here have.

The reason this issue is so contentious, is there are fundamental rights in conflict with one another. We've touched on several such conflicts here: Woman's freedom vs. Baby's right to live; Woman's right to justice vs. Baby's right to live; Woman's right to live vs. Baby's right to live. When rights are in conflict, the greater right should prevail. It is hard to imagine a right superior to the right to life itself.

Abortion is only possible by denying the humaninty of those unborn and thereby witholding from them any rights whatsoever. We all agree it will become a human being at some point. Where we disagree is WHEN we will deign to recognize it as such. Since the right we are collectively denying is superlative (life itself), shouldn't the decision to grant or withhold it be made soberly, honestly and fairly? Since the unborn have no voice, it is up to the rest of humanity to protect the unborn's interests and be that voice.

You have been a most thoughtful and eloquent guest here at the Heartland, Thinkwell. You have my respect if not my agreement.

The democratic process (which we, as citizens, have all agreed to abide by) is the only fair means by which can come to a governing agreement on this extremely polemical social puzzle (the abortion issue).

I am willing to put the question squarely to the people and abide by their (our) democratic decision, whatever it may be. Are you?

If this question were decided by the people rather than the courts, where do you think our nation would draw the line? (This is a completely different question than how and what you personally would vote for.)

Happy New Year!

Thinkwell: I am willing to put the question squarely to the people and abide by their (our) democratic decision, whatever it may be. Are you?

Scottie: Absolutely, to do otherwise is anarchy. But it will not change my view as to when human life begins. You are seeking a political solution. I am seeking intellectual clarity.


Thinkwell: If this question were decided by the people rather than the courts, where do you think our nation would draw the line? (This is a completely different question than how and what you personally would vote for.)

Scottie: I don't know what the voters would decide. I assume some states would be very restrictive and others quite liberal. This highlights the absurdity of deciding absolutes by popular referendum. In New York and California, the unborn would likely never be recognized as human beings. In North Dakota and Alabama, they would probably be recognized from conception. Then our debate would be which state is correct. In other words, you would have a political solution without ever addressing the fundamental question; "When does human life begin?" The answer would then be, it depends on geography.

Sorry I wasn't more clear about the question of a vote - when I wrote "where do you think our nation would draw the line" I meant that literally - a national referendum. Because of the fundamental rights involved (the question of personhood upon which hangs the right to control one's own body verses a fetus's right to life itself), it makes no sense (to me) to try to settle this on a state-by-state basis. (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness type question are not for the states.)

With that in mind, if the abortion issue were to be decided by the people on the national level, where do you our nation would draw the line?

If not by popular referendum at the national level, then what better way would you suggest to fairly settle this issue, given the extreme diversity of passionate opinion on the matter?

Scottie: I have provided a logical argument and an objective non-theological definition of the beginning of human life. For all of our discussion it has not been refuted.

It has not been refuted because you are asking the wrong question. :) It is only marginally material to the abortion question. No one seriously questions whether a normal human embryo is human life. The critical question is whether it is yet a human being / person. That is *not* mere semantics. Words mean something.

Think well - see clearly. :)

Thinkwell: If not by popular referendum at the national level, then what better way would you suggest to fairly settle this issue, given the extreme diversity of passionate opinion on the matter?

Scottie: I AM NOT SEEKING A POLITICAL SOLUTION, I AM SEEKING INTELLECTUAL CLARITY! What part of that escapes you? You seem determined to avoid coming to terms with the barbarity of abortion by constantly asking for political solutions. As for your endless political questions that I have answered ad nauseum, I don't need a committee to understand right and wrong, nor should you.

Thinkwell: It has not been refuted because you are asking the wrong question. It is only marginally material to the abortion question. No one seriously questions whether a normal human embryo is human life. The critical question is whether it is yet a human being / person. That is *not* mere semantics. Words mean something.

Scottie: No, it is the CENTRAL question. When does human life begin? If we all agreed that human life has begun, the evil being done is manifest. All your arguments to the contrary are mere soft reasoning and slippery rhetoric designed to avoid this central question. You can't face it. You bring up exceptions, hypotheticals, political compromises, and endless sophistry only to concede that we all agree that human life has begun, but now we need a new standard: Personhood! If you don't like it, just redefine it to mean something else? Human life is human life. It isn't personhood.

Didn't your mother teach you that taking human life is wrong? It is wrong you know? And since "No one seriously questions whether a normal human embryo is human life", the conundrum has been solved, No? Everything that follows is rationalization to cover the selfish barbarity of ending that innocent voiceless life.

I suppose you know that when it comes to the abortion debate, the reason reasonable people on opposite sides cannot come to agreement is not a lack of logic or intellectual clarity, but a fundamental difference in base assumptions. For easy example, some believe the human soul enters the "body" at the moment of conception, conferring the new life with a sanctity that must not be violated. This clearly is a matter of faith and cannot be proven or disproved.

Others, including you, would classify even early abortion as murder merely because the conceptus is human, alive and, if left undisturbed in the proper environment, possesses a fair potential of developing into a born person. The given facts are clear, but do not directly support the conclusion that killing an early embryo is and/or should be murder, i.e. that the early embryo is yet a person. That is only an implied base assumption and is strictly a matter of opinion upon which many people may legitimately disagree.

Clearly, before conception an egg and a sperm are human, alive and, if left undisturbed in the proper environment, possess a fair potential of developing into a born person. In fact, it is on this basis that some people would ban most forms of contraception. There is only the finest of lines between this belief and yours, yet it is a logical conclusion deriving from an only slightly different set of base assumptions.

It is my opinion that human conception is only the first step in the building a living vessel to hold the human mind, the presence of which primarily defines what it is to be a human being. IMO, until the spark of the mind is lit, the person does not yet exist. An early embryo has no memories, no awareness of self, no thoughts and not even the ability to feel pain, for it has yet to grow a brain. Construction of the house has begun, but no one has moved in. At this point, I see no good reason why the the landlady shouldn't be able to tear the house down if she so chooses. After all, she owns the construction company and the building site.

When the occasional tragedy of a completely anencephalic fetus is detected, few people would deny the mother the option of abortion, regardless of how far along she may
be. No doubt this is because, without a brain, such a fetus is not a person to most people.

An early embryo is even less of a person (just a blob of cells really). Its only greater possession is the *potential* of personhood. And potential people cannot be murdered.

You have also argued that since unwanted pregnancy is a known, possible natural consequence of an activity the woman voluntarily engaged in, she has thereby already made her choice and should have no right to have it "fixed". Would you argue that since a leg broken on the ski slopes is a known, possible natural consequence of an activity the woman also voluntarily engaged in, she has thereby already made her choice and should have no right to have it "fixed" as well? (To my mind, both ideas are equally absurd.)

Scottie: As for your endless political questions that I have answered ad nauseum [...]

No fair counting the answers you gave to questions I never asked. :) You've yet to answer this question: If the abortion issue were to be decided tomorrow by nationwide popular vote to create a single unified standard for all the states, where do you think our nation would draw the line?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for a stimulating debate.

The Abortion Issue is always an enjoyable diversion from my real ponderings so I hopped in. Interesting concept letting the people decide when a fetus is to be considered a human. I think congress already started such work last year when they allowed a person to be tried for the death of a fetus. I say lets do it.
Next task, because of something I saw today, can we please charge every pregnant woman caught smoking or drinking with distributing a controled substance to a minor? It's seriously the most disgusting thing one can do to a child, abuse it before its ever born. If we're arguing that a fetus is an individual with rights I think it has a few more than just the right to potential birth. The list is probably a bit longer than just a clean O2 supply but it is a start.

Thanks for stopping by the Heartland and commenting.

I think we disagree in this. The governent has a duty to protect life, but not the right to tell us how to live it. I think your zeal to impose controls on someone else's behavior goes too far. The unborn has the right to live and that is a proper use of government. The government does not have the right to tell the woman how to live, or to control her choices. You may find her choices disgusting, but it isn't your child. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

Please protect me from those protecting me from myself.

What a loaded subject. I couldn't read every post, for the simple reason that as i read i realized that reason and arguments mean very little to me here. I guess my feely touchy tree hugging liberal side floats to the surface and says I feel abortion is a tragic mistake to be avoided except under the most recognizable and excusable circumstances. In the final analysis, i think we all come to this, to drawing a recognizable line. Pro-abortion folks say murder starts at any line the pregnant woman decides to draw. Flagwaver sees implantation, Scottie sees fertilization in a functioning uterus. I personally choose fertilization itself, with failure to implant an example of miscarriage. The nitty gritty is dealing with the concept in law. Thinkwell says vote to decide. Works sometimes, but the majority is not aways right. At this point Scottie, i hit the wall. Even if i were suddenly transformed into the His Grand Muftiness of Infallible Poohbah, i don't know how i would handle all the conflicting interests. One thing i do know, it would be harder to have an abortion, because most women are damaged far more than they anticipate when they abort a child. Childbearing is such an important part of a female's biological makeup, the average woman frustrates this function at her peril. Education, counseling, pregnancy support, and reform of the existing idiotic adoption system in this country make an obvious start, but i fear would only be a small start.

Thanks for dropping by the Heartland and leaving your comment. If you say you are a liberal, I guess I'll have to accept that, but your fellow liberals aren't going to be very welcoming to your ideas I fear.

There has been a very fruitful discussion on this particular thread, and I am particularly thankful to Thinkwell for his perseverence and thoughtful replies and challenges. I thank you as well for adding to the discussion. Please feel welcome here, as you most certainly are.

Scottie, perhaps this bears slightly more discussion than either of us thinks. Here is the real crucst. If we declare a fetus as a human (a hypothetical exercise at the moment according to law), what rights and responsiblilities does its mother have during the pregnancy. The federal government has already declared(Unborns Victims Act/Laci's Law?) that if one kills a pregnant mother he/she is also responsible for the life of the fetus, in California the State Supreme Court even ruled that the oblivious killing of a fetus makes one responisible(http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1080858031013).

Now again we turn to a child under the age of 18 administering that dose of nicotine would be a crime. Thus if a fetus is a child under law the law would have to be consistant. Further if the mother miscarried as a result of smoking that would be manslaughter. Note I'm sticking with smoking as its a clear example of irresponsible action taken by the mother.

This leads to the question of what exactly are the rights of the fetus if we declared it a full human besides not being prematurely terminated. I'd say as a human it would have a lot, which might be dangerous as there's just too many possible ways to damage a fetus at that stage of developement. This may be one of the hardest things to figure out in a political prolife/prochoice discussion.

With my laptop down, I am currently unable to give you a proper response on this. You raise some valid issues and I would like to address them as soon as it is practical for me to do so. Rather than give you a brief and unsatisfactory answer, please allow me to table this discussion until my new laptop arrives. Your point is worthy of better than I can offer you at this time.

First, thank you for your patience and for stopping by and joining in the conversation.

The purpose of my essay is to attempt to identify the logical point at which human life begins. I grant that many things follow from that definition, hence its importance. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. But I do possess common sense, logic, and intellectual integrity. That you would use my definition to further the government's intrusion into our lives by regulating the behavior of pregnant mothers is indeed food for thought. More government is not the answer here; respect for the humanity of the unborn is. Please protect me from those that would protect me from myself, for my own good, because they know better.

So let me ask the obvious. Is it your contention that the government should regulate the behavior of pregnant women? How would further punishing a woman that has miscarried a child, whether by neglect or ignorance, serve the interests of society? While I would protect life itself by preventing its arbitrary destruction, your reasoning seems intent on meddling with every decision that follows its creation. This is the same mentality that justifies government intrusion into the lives of smokers. That the entire basis for doing so is based on such a totally fraudulent premise seems to escape notice completely. It has managed to lay-out the blueprint for this same group of do-gooders to now go after the fast food industry in order to enrich themselves while protecting us from ourselves.

You go too far in your reasoning I fear. Grant me that there is considerable difference between protecting life itself and directing the lives of its parent(s). That I would take away the right to arbitrarily kill an unborn human being does not mean I would allow the government to use that as an excuse to regulate the lives of pregnant women. Nor do I think the government should tell business owners whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments. Nor do I think the government should outlaw transfats in restaurants (New York), or fois gras (Chicago).

Let me post a couple of my favorite quotes:

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." -- T.S. Elliot

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

First off, thanks for your comments. The libertarian in me would like to agree, but the prolife side doesn't.

In this case there's an issue of defining a fetus as a human(that was your premise for outlawing abortion). In doing so the woman's right to swing her fist would have to end where the fetus's face begins. If a fetus is a human and it's not a crime for her to expose it to nicotine then its similarly not a crime for her to force her kids to smoke but we both know that would get an immediate response from DCFS.

Further it would not be a crime to intentially O.D. on estrogen based birth control pills and effectively give herself a chemical abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy. There's actually a form of chemical abortion(There's a flier at most Catholic Churches with the title "Human Pesticide") now for later term, wear a drug is given which kills the child then labor is induced to remove the dead fetus(a human right?). Isn't this you principle thesis: abortion bad?

That's my issue at hand either the fetus is human and thereby gets certain inaliable rights or its not human, at which point the prolife arguement is mute and the gov't has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I don't see how it can be both ways.

As for your question:
"So let me ask the obvious. Is it your contention that the government should regulate the behavior of pregnant women? How would further punishing a woman that has miscarried a child, whether by neglect or ignorance, serve the interests of society?"

I also don't see that the gov't telling a pregnant woman she can't smoke is any different from telling her she must carry a child to full term. Making abortion illegal would already be regulating the behavior of pregnent women.

As for punishing a woman who smoked during pregnancy and its benefit to society, and thereby caused a miscarriage. I'll admit such an idea is draconian, but so is smoking during pregnancy. The concept would be similar to why we have penalties for involuntary manslaughter(Say for driving under the influence and killing someone), a deterent for wreckless behavior.

Note: I'm not necessarily advocating a punishment but I see such a thing being a possibility if a fetus is declared a human. It's simply the logical conclusion of already existing laws, you don't give drugs to minors. If you give drugs to minors in your care, they die, your responsible. It's not the gov't protecting you from yourself its the gov't protecting a child from what is for all practical purposes is child abuse. That's what gov'ts do protect people from other other people(including irresponsible parents who abuse their kids).

By the way love the C.S Lewis quote use it all the time. Read Screwtape letters and Chronicles, plan to read Mere Christianity as soon as I finish Atlas Shrugged by Ann Raynd.

AC: First off, thanks for your comments. The libertarian in me would like to agree, but the pro-life side doesn't.

S: I don’t think you are a libertarian at all. I do think you are a pro-life zealot that is willing to use the power of government to force your morality onto others.


AC: In this case there's an issue of defining a fetus as a human(that was your premise for outlawing abortion). In doing so the woman's right to swing her fist would have to end where the fetus's face begins. If a fetus is a human and it's not a crime for her to expose it to nicotine then its similarly not a crime for her to force her kids to smoke but we both know that would get an immediate response from DCFS.

S: Here you would make smoking equivalent to murder. This is hyperbole. Smoking is not murder. While the child may suffer some ill effects from the smoking, it is hardly equivalent to being murdered. Where is your sense of proportion?

AC: Further it would [not?] be a crime to intentionally O.D. on estrogen based birth control pills and effectively give herself a chemical abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy. There's actually a form of chemical abortion (There's a flier at most Catholic Churches with the title "Human Pesticide") now for later term, where a drug is given which kills the child then labor is induced to remove the dead fetus (a human right?). Isn't this your principle thesis: abortion bad?

S: My principal thesis is: Conception voluntarily occurring within a womb capable of carrying it to term is human life, and willfully terminating that life is wrong. This is true no matter the methodology used to terminate it.

AC: That's my issue at hand either the fetus is human and thereby gets certain inalienable rights or its not human, at which point the pro-life argument is moot and the gov't has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I don't see how it can be both ways.

S: We have an inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We do not have the right to never be subjected to stress. Again, you are equating smoking (or drinking alcohol) during pregnancy to murder. You can absolutely be alive and still have to deal with unpleasant experiences. The two are not mutually exclusive. We are dealing with a conflict of rights here. You would take away all of the rights of the mother in favor of the unborn child, and in so doing cast the argument as an unpalatable choice.


S: "So let me ask the obvious. Is it your contention that the government should regulate the behavior of pregnant women? How would further punishing a woman that has miscarried a child, whether by neglect or ignorance, serve the interests of society?"

AC: I also don't see that the gov't telling a pregnant woman she can't smoke is any different from telling her she must carry a child to full term. Making abortion illegal would already be regulating the behavior of pregnent women.

S: The government isn’t telling a woman she can’t smoke during pregnancy, you are. And neither of you should do so. Are we forcing the woman to carry the child to term or preventing her from killing an unborn child? The question seems the same, but the framing of it makes a difference. “Forcing” her to carry the child implies that she never had a choice in the matter. She did have that choice. The child exists through the woman’s voluntary behavior, so doesn’t the burden that imposes naturally follow? The child has done nothing to deserve to die and has never been given a choice.


AC: As for punishing a woman who smoked during pregnancy and its benefit to society, and thereby caused a miscarriage, I'll admit such an idea is draconian, but so is smoking during pregnancy. The concept would be similar to why we have penalties for involuntary manslaughter (Say for driving under the influence and killing someone), a deterrent for reckless behavior.

S: Smoking during pregnancy isn’t draconian. Again, you present a false equivalence. Smoking isn’t murder. While the unborn child may suffer some weakened development, it is not likely to die from it. In absolute numbers, this occurrence would be very rare. This disproportional result debunks the argument. An unborn child may in rare instances die from exposure to nicotine; an unborn child will definitely die as the result of an abortion. The two are not equivalent at all.


AC: Note: I'm not necessarily advocating a punishment but I see such a thing being a possibility if a fetus is declared a human. It's simply the logical conclusion of already existing laws, you don't give drugs to minors. If you give drugs to minors in your care, they die, your responsible. It's not the gov't protecting you from yourself its the gov't protecting a child from what is for all practical purposes is child abuse. That's what gov'ts do protect people from other other people (including irresponsible parents who abuse their kids).

S: Of course you are advocating punishing women that don’t adhere to your moral standards on smoking. It is the entire basis of your argument so far. You’ve equated smoking while pregnant with murder and child abuse. Now you equate it to giving drugs to minors. All of these are punishable offenses. But none of them are equivalent. Protecting your life is not the same as protecting you from any potential harm.


AC: By the way love the C.S Lewis quote use it all the time. Read Screwtape letters and Chronicles, plan to read Mere Christianity as soon as I finish Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

S: Some other good books you would enjoy: “American Alone” by Mark Steyn: “The Gulag Archipelago” by A. Solzhenitsyn. Currently on deck “The Brothers Karamazov” by Dostoevsky, and just about finished with “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright.

“People that can read good books and don’t have no advantage over those that cannot read at all.” – Mark Twain

AC: In this case there's an issue of defining a fetus as a human (that was your premise for outlawing abortion). In doing so the woman's right to swing her fist would have to end where the fetus's face begins. If a fetus is a human and it's not a crime for her to expose it to nicotine then its similarly not a crime for her to force her kids to smoke but we both know that would get an immediate response from DCFS.

S: Here you would make smoking equivalent to murder. This is hyperbole. Smoking is not murder. While the child may suffer some ill effects from the smoking, it is hardly equivalent to being murdered. Where is your sense of proportion?

Scottie, I think you were completely misreading what AC wrote. AC was only suggesting that an unborn child should be protected from exposure to smoking to a similar extent and with similar enforcement measures as are afforded a small child or newborn baby. The rest was misunderstanding or hyperbole on your part.

For another example, it is common knowledge that certain levels of alcohol abuse while pregnant will likely lead to fetal alcohol syndrome. If the fetus is legally a person and the mother chronically exposes it to levels of alcohol known to very likely result in significant lifelong damage to the fetus/child, then why should this not be punished any less severely than any other, equally harmful form of child abuse (e.g., brain damage induced by the shaking of a crying baby)?

Ongoing excessive ingestion of alcohol while pregnant may not reach the levels of baby murder nor merit the same punishments, but protection of the innocent and proportional justice probably would demand removal of the born child and jail time for the mother. Also, to the temporal extent abortion is illegal, I would be perfectly okay with proactively subjecting a pregnant unrepentant habitual drunkard to 24/7 custody in order to protect the unborn child from otherwise nearly certain severe developmental damage. As AC pointed out, your right to swig your bottle stops where his being begins.

It is this principle, by the way, that also should protect a rape victim's unborn child from abortion. The fetus is not responsible for the the crimes of its father. Once it has developed equally to a point where any other fetus would be considered an unborn child, the mother should no longer have the right to swing her "abortionist fist" through its face. By all means, punish the rapist and proceed to provide the rape victim every assistance with the pregnancy and adoption process, but don't, at that point, make a second victim out of the completely innocent unborn child. Logic, consistency and justice demand no less.

Think well - see clearly. :)

Upon reflection better writing would have been (2nd to last paragraph), "As AC pointed out, mom's right to swig her bottle stops where baby's being begins." (Too bad this forum does not provide a short term, post-posting edit function.) -- tw

TW: Scottie, I think you were completely misreading what AC wrote. AC was only suggesting that an unborn child should be protected from exposure to smoking to a similar extent and with similar enforcement measures as are afforded a small child or newborn baby. The rest was misunderstanding or hyperbole on your part.

S: So if I take you correctly, since we cannot defend the unborn against every conceivable injustice on the part of its parent, we shouldn’t protect it in any way? Or are you arguing that since it is a human being, we should use that to justify imposing a virtual police state upon the mother? Since either of these positions is extreme to say the least, I fail to see hyperbole in my rejection of both of them. You will note that I’ve never proposed any law, or called for any referendum, or argued anything beyond the humanity of the unborn and that it is wrong to kill them. Reread the article; what law have I ever proposed? Where have I advocated using the power of government? True the government properly has the duty to protect life (if we could only define it), but as I’ve previously stated, it does not have the right to tell us how to live it. Advocating the infliction of government upon the mother is your idea (and AC’s), not mine.


TW: For another example, it is common knowledge that certain levels of alcohol abuse while pregnant will likely lead to fetal alcohol syndrome. If the fetus is legally a person and the mother chronically exposes it to levels of alcohol known to very likely result in significant lifelong damage to the fetus/child, then why should this not be punished any less severely than any other, equally harmful form of child abuse (e.g., brain damage induced by the shaking of a crying baby)?

S: Since we haven’t been able to agree as to what constitutes a “person”, is there any point to be argued here? You seem intent on argument for its own sake. You spent a considerable amount of time arguing that the unborn are not “persons”. Are you now conceding that they are? Has your opinion changed, or just your rhetoric?

TW: Ongoing excessive ingestion of alcohol while pregnant may not reach the levels of baby murder nor merit the same punishments, but protection of the innocent and proportional justice probably would demand removal of the born child and jail time for the mother. Also, to the temporal extent abortion is illegal, I would be perfectly okay with proactively subjecting a pregnant unrepentant habitual drunkard to 24/7 custody in order to protect the unborn child from otherwise nearly certain severe developmental damage. As AC pointed out, your right to swig your bottle stops where his being begins.

S: Thinkwell: "I'm okay with a 9 week old embryo having no rights at all, but I realize that is just my personal opinion and others may differ." Thinkwell: “I would be perfectly okay with proactively subjecting a pregnant unrepentant . . .” These are irreconcilable arguments. You seem to be OK with either side. It’s OK to kill it, because it isn’t a “person”; and it’s OK to impose your will on the mother in the name of the “person” you have previously argued doesn’t exist. It’s getting pretty difficult to take what you say seriously.


TW: It is this principle, by the way, that also should protect a rape victim's unborn child from abortion. The fetus is not responsible for the crimes of its father. Once it has developed equally to a point where any other fetus would be considered an unborn child, the mother should no longer have the right to swing her "abortionist fist" through its face. By all means, punish the rapist and proceed to provide the rape victim every assistance with the pregnancy and adoption process, but don't, at that point, make a second victim out of the completely innocent unborn child. Logic, consistency and justice demand no less.

S: We’ve already covered this. Now you advocate the government’s intrusion in the very same example that you previously said you would be fine with. I’ve explained my position on this particular point, and am not swayed by this lurch in the other direction.

You aren’t being consistent Thinkwell. You don’t appear to have any core values or beliefs you wish to put forth and defend. Am I to continue to take you seriously?

First off Think Well:
Kudos for essentially reworking a few of my cruder paragraphs I think you did an excellent job putting down what I was trying to express.

This line was perfect:
AC was only suggesting that an unborn child should be protected from exposure to smoking to a similar extent and with similar enforcement measures as are afforded a small child or newborn baby.

Scottie from your reponse to me:
S: My principal thesis is: Conception voluntarily occurring within a womb capable of carrying it to term is human life, and willfully terminating that life is wrong. This is true no matter the methodology used to terminate it.

So if we take the part of YOUR thesis stating a voluntarily created fetus is a human life, realise by definition its a minor, thus all current child abuse and drug distribution laws would hold. These would be the canonical rights/protections afforded to the fetus.

So your position is to swing entirely the other way. Since it is a human being, its rights now supercede all of the rights of the mother and the state is given carte blanche to rule over every aspect her behavior. Why stop at smoking? Let's add drinking, and not getting enough rest, or forgetting to take prenatal vitamins, or driving too fast, or eating fatty foods, etc. Where does it stop? One could argue all of these things are detrimental to the unborn child. You propose to protect the unborn to such an onerous extent as to make having a child unbearable to every woman, not just those contemplating abortion. This isn't a rational position. The imposition you advocate simply isn't justified nor are the benefits remotely equivalent to the costs. Sophistry, nothing more.

S: So if I take you correctly, since we cannot defend the unborn against every conceivable injustice on the part of its parent, we shouldn't protect it in any way? Or are you arguing that since it is a human being, we should use that to justify imposing a virtual police state upon the mother?

That false dichotomy is entirely of your own mistaking. :)

I am proposing that, after the point at which an unborn child legally becomes a person, our laws should afford it a level of protection similar to that provided to a newborn. For example, parents are generally allowed to smoke around their children because the link between indirect smoke and harm to children is weak and only statistical. Similarly, smoking while pregnant statistically leads to smaller, dumber, less healthy babies, but the correlation is far too slight to conclude that any given baby will suffer certain (or even likely) major harm. Unless Mom smokes like a 19th-century London factory chimney and has previously produced conclusively smoking damaged babies, there would be no compelling reason to legally restrict her addiction during pregnancy. You see, it would be a reasonable balancing of rights - just like with born children.

Think well -- see clearly. :)

S: Thinkwell: "I'm okay with a 9 week old embryo having no rights at all, but I realize that is just my personal opinion and others may differ." Thinkwell: “I would be perfectly okay with proactively subjecting a pregnant unrepentant . . .” These are irreconcilable arguments. You seem to be OK with either side. It’s OK to kill it, because it isn’t a “person”; and it’s OK to impose your will on the mother in the name of the “person” you have previously argued doesn’t exist. It’s getting pretty difficult to take what you say seriously.

Scottie, this really isn't a very difficult concept: once a person exists, it has rights, before it exists, it does not. I believe a fetus becomes a person between two to four months after conception. I don't expect you to agree, but I *do* expect you to be able to see what logically follows from that premise.

Think well -- see clearly. :)

So what happens to the mother's rights? Do we simply abandon them completely in favor of the unborn child?

S: So what happens to the mother's rights? Do we simply abandon them completely in favor of the unborn child?

No, the pregnant woman's rights would not be abandoned - they would be balanced against the rights of the child she carries (just as any two born persons rights must be balanced if they come into conflict).

Perhaps you are a smoker (I am decidedly not). If so, the previous illustrative example of the balancing of rights bears repeating.

Parents are generally allowed to smoke around their children because the link between indirect smoke and harm to children is weak and only statistical. Similarly, smoking while pregnant statistically leads to smaller, dumber, less healthy babies, but the correlation is far too slight to conclude that any given baby will suffer certain (or even likely) major harm. Unless Mom smokes like a 19th-century London factory chimney and has previously produced conclusively smoking damaged babies, there would be no compelling reason to legally restrict her addiction during pregnancy.

You see, it would be a reasonable balancing of parent/child rights - just like with born children.

Think well -- see clearly. :)

S:Thinkwell
So what happens to the mother's rights? Do we simply abandon them completely in favor of the unborn child?

Lets go back to the orginal article:
The time for a woman to “control her own body” is forfeit once she has conceived. It is no longer her body that suffers the injury, but that of her developing child.

Her developing child would suffer from her smoking and drinking.

Stretch marks, weight gain and all the other “injuries” a woman will rightly claim to suffer from carrying a child to term are more than outweighed by the injury of premature death suffered by an innocent child.

Nicotine fits and the inability to go out and drink are apparently injuries that out way a very real and potentially even fatalily injury to the child though?

Finally:
Similarly, once a woman has conceived, the bell has rung, however unintentionally. An abortion is comparable to requesting a return to the status quo ante.

The consequence of her actions is bearing the child AND being responsible for its 9 month gestation.

S: Anonymous Coward
So your position is to swing entirely the other way. Since it is a human being, its rights now supercede all of the rights of the mother and the state is given carte blanche to rule over every aspect her behavior. Why stop at smoking? Let's add drinking, and not getting enough rest, or forgetting to take prenatal vitamins, or driving too fast, or eating fatty foods, etc. Where does it stop? One could argue all of these things are detrimental to the unborn child.

This is a slippery slope argument and not a good one. Theres a huge difference between smoking and eating fatty foods. Its comparible to giving a 5 year old happy meals, cigarettes/booze, or not imposing a proper sleep schedule for the child; all irresponsible but only one is a crime. This is because one is clearly worse.

You propose to protect the unborn to such an onerous extent as to make having a child unbearable to every woman, not just those contemplating abortion. This isn't a rational position.

I agree I'd never proposed to go that far. In fact I said it'd be possible to go to far(and dangerously) in my second post. Exactly the reason I thought the subject deserves more attention. However, what you're proposing is to allow what ever forms of abuse a mother wishes to place on the fetus are fine so long as she had no intention of killing it. This also appears irrational if one places the full value of human life on the fetus.

Is it possible? Do we finally agree? If it is a human being, and it has the right to live, it stands to reason that it has other rights as well. But I would tread with far greater care for the mother's rights than Anonymous Coward (and I suspect you as well) would.

It appears you got my point better than AC has.

We still differ as to timing, and I think your position is somewhat arbitrary where mine tends to be more absolute. But we can differ on that. I think we have actually reached an accord on the "rights" aspect.

Well done Thinkwell.

AC: Her developing child would suffer from her smoking and drinking. . . Nicotine fits and the inability to go out and drink are apparently injuries that outweigh a very real and potentially even fatalily injury to the child though?

S: The injury to the unborn to which the article refers is DEATH. The injuries to the mother are not comparable. There is a vast difference between quality of life, and life itself. And the injury is certain death, not the potential death you infer from smoking. You cannot make the case that if a pregnant woman smokes, her child will certainly die. I can make the case that if a pregnant woman gets an abortion, the child surely will.


AC: The consequence of her actions is bearing the child AND being responsible for its 9 month gestation.

S: I think her responsibility to bear the child is manifest if she cannot abort it. However, that she must carry it does not give you the right to tell her how to do so. I am confident that the woman’s definition of carrying the child to term responsibly is far preferable to yours. The government has no duty to protect us from every potential harm, nor should it. I would agree that if the unborn child has a right to live, one could extrapolate that other rights would follow. In all but the most egregious cases, I would rely on the mother to be the arbiter of those rights. Without her, the child would not exist. With her, every other aspect of the child’s life will be her responsibility even after the child is born. I don’t buy your definition of abuse with respect to smoking during pregnancy. I believe Thinkwell has put forth a far stronger argument with drinking. There it would be a matter of degree. A pregnant woman enjoying an occasional glass of wine with her meal is not the same as an alcoholic pounding down a fifth of vodka. The latter would be an example of an egregious case I referred to above, and probably would require intervention of some sort.

Sorry AC, but you have to balance your zeal to protect the unborn with the need to recognize the humanity and rights of the mother. And thank you for providing such a sterling example of the lengths to which the anti-smoking cabal is willing to inflict itself on others. Witness the real slippery slope demonstrated here. First it was airlines, then bars and restaurants, then buildings, then beaches, now the womb. The irony is not lost on me.

But I would tread with far greater care for the mother's rights than Anonymous Coward, and I suspect you would as well.

S: And thank you for providing such a sterling example of the lengths to which the anti-smoking cabal is willing to inflict itself on others. Witness the real slippery slope demonstrated here. First it was airlines, then bars and restaurants, then buildings, then beaches, now the womb.

Several people close to me have died prematurely due to the various effects of smoking. I hate smoking and nearly everything about it. It is a stinking, foul, destructive habit (fire, too), but I still would strongly defend the right of others to smoke as long as they respect my right not be forced to suffer the costs or ill effects of their habit.

The government should keep its hands off private business that provide the smoking public with nonessential services (for example, restaurants). I am free to vote with my feet on the matter and am okay with that. However, small enclosed public spaces (elevators, most airplanes), public facilities (courts, libraries, government buildings, etc.) should all be smoke-free.

There is no such thing as a nonsmoking section in an airplane, but I don't see why airlines shouldn't be able to offer additional smoking flights as along as a smoke free flight is also always available. With beaches, it is hard to imagine a situation where there couldn't be room for a smoking section. Live and let live (or die slowly, in this case) - just don't make me join you or pay for any of the extra costs you incur.

On that last note, if you choose a life of smoking and end up dying horribly of lung
cancer, emphysema, etc., then I hope you can afford the extra costs of care, because I will have no sympathy for your suffering and you have no right to make me pay for your elective stupidity.

Think well -- see clearly.

Well said Thinkwell, and I agree completely. From what I've read, and it makes sense to me, smokers more than cover their costs through the taxes on the cigarettes themselves and the forfeiture of the social security they pay in when they die early in higher than average numbers. You present my views on the matter as well as I could have myself.

I need to get started on a new article. I've thoroughly enjoyed our discourse, thank you. I really do need to move on to something else though; we've hacked this topic to death. Any suggestions for a topic?

It's great to see this simple truth stated so clearly.

The mother should not have the right to kill her unborn child just because it is her body.

Good job, Scottie.