Yeah...you can find a couple cases, but I've seen countless others that are never prosecuted. Shoot, most states won't even prosecute parents who kill their babies in car wrecks because they don't put them in car seats. And that's with definitive laws requiring the use of car seats.

I've specified that for the purposes of the political discussion of the topic presented in the poll I meant anti/pro- legalized abortion - and my point is that those who apply those labels to themselves do so with some caveats. Again, not an either/or situation.

Using your logic, it would be most accurate to term my beliefs as "pro-life", because they spring from a desire to save lives, born and unborn. But since we are talking about the legalization of abortion, the most accurate term is anti-abortion,with the understanding that it is possible to be against abortion on demand but to make exceptions in rare and defined cases (i.e., life of the mother), just as someone might call themselves "pro-choice", but believe that the choice being talked about has some limits. Most pro-legalized abortion people I know have a limit to what they will accept as abortion on demand - they would not sanction an abortion at 38 weeks, for example. Does that mean they are hypocrites? Hardly. It means that we are talking about an issue with a great deal of complexity to it.

Actually, I can found quite a few with very little research- and I can think of at least a handful of cases off the top of my head covered here in TX of parents who were prosecuted for the deaths of their children for their failure to properly secure them. Two weeks ago we had a case of a toddler who fell out of a truck. My brother is a police officer who ALWAYS writes up parents who he sees with unsecured children in their cars. I'm not sure how to find cases which weren't prosecuted - I would think they wouldn't be covered, and I guess I'm not searching using the correct terms. How did you find them? ( And yes, I realize we've gotten a little far afield here - but since AOIIAngel used the example of parents being prosecuted for a specific law, that's what I addressed.)

But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not the criminals are prosecuted - the issue is that as a point of law our society recognizes unborn children as having rights - limited rights, and rights which are subject (obviously!) to a great deal of moral and legal wrangling in order to support, but rights which do exist.

I have had to have two abortions in my life. For both times the reason I got pregnant despite the birth control I was taking at the time, was because I wasn't informed by my doctor or pharmacist that the antibiotic I was taking at the time, negated the effectiveness of my birth control. Both times I was with my boyfriend of five years and he supported me in whatever I would decide. I still regret having them but not as much as I would've regretted keeping them. As a biology major I also know that being in the first trimester my babies had not yet reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain, the defining characteristics that makes us human. I also know had I not had the abortions I would never have been able go to the college of my choice, or for that matter join my sorority.
So, to the people out there that so vehemently oppose what I have done, from the standpoint of a scared 17 year old girl, you should concentrate on improving the lives of those around you and not tell me what to do with mine. It is my own decision to live with.

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?

For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old.

Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human?

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

eta - I want to be clear that while I think you made an unfortunate choice (well, two), I am sympathetic to the plight of ANY woman who finds herself in that situation. I have 4 children - 3 of whom were "unplanned". I know what it is to feel the panic and fear of having your life turned upside down. Baby #2 came in the midst of our unemployment - no insurance, no real income - yikes! Baby #4 came a mere 15 months after baby #3 - and I was 38 at the time. But out of fear and panic can come opportunity, and often the things we fear most turn out to be blessings in disguise.

I've personally seen the children come in dead because they aren't physically restrained. I did two years of general surgery residency at a Level 1 Trauma center. My attending, who was very active in national trauma surgery groups, was part of a movement to convince DAs around the country that yes, parents should be prosecuted for these cases. Few of the cases made it to courts because the DA felt the "parents had suffered enough already." The ones that do make it to court are the egregious ones like the one I personally witnessed- a morbidly obese woman was holding her 6 week old baby while driving. She got in a wreck and crushed her baby between the steering wheel and her body. Gruesome. Unfortunately, the parents had suffered enough on the countless kids I treated with severe head injuries after flying around a car unrestrained.

So far, the unborn really don't have any rights. See how many cases of crack mothers you can find that have been prosecuted. Babies are born EVERY SINGLE day in the US addicted to drugs. The state takes those babies away but RARELY goes after the mother.

Just remember that every person is different and every town does not have a Edna Gladney Center. You're community is lucky to have that option, but it isn't available to everyone.

AOIIAngel - the unborn do have federal rights - see the above link to information on the Violence against Unborn act . . .

As to restraints - the laws should be enforced.

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

This is ironic, because . . .

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

QFC

(Quoted For Co-sign-worthiness)

you're still comparing the two. it's an incorrect and silly example because the underlying circumstances and reasons for either one are completely different. again, your logic is way off. people aren't getting abortions at the same rate or reasons as tattoos or speeding. this comparison is about as valid as tax evasion and jay walking.

it IS a woman's body at the forefront. without the woman's body, that fetus is dead. the text book definition of that is that the fetus is a parasite. it needs another being to live and grow.

sounds pretty good to me.

I was careful to say that IF you believe there is a limit to abortion on demand THEREFORE you believe that there is a point at which the fetus is a person. If that is the case, then we ARE indeed on the same boat - we believe that there is a point before birth at which the fetus is a person with rights. I believe it is quite obvious that I'm not worried about being alone in my beliefs - but IF the above syllogism is true, then we do have at least some minor point of agreement from which we can have a productive discussion. If you don't believe that there is no point at which the fetus has rights, then you are correct. We have no beliefs in common. It is the failure of both sides to recognize possible areas of agreement that causes so much in the way of over-blown hyperbole, which does nothing to help anyone.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

Once more into the breech -

So you DO believe that the right to abortion should only extend until the point of viability - 24 weeks on? Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

I believe starang21 agrees with the restriction of abortion at the 23-24 week mark.

Isn't the political term for late term abortions "partial birth abortion?" That's when the baby is aborted 4 months and beyond; and many consider this to be inappropriate because the baby is viable or almost viable. I only condone 4 month and beyond abortions if the mother and/or baby's lives are in danger.

This is why this is a very strange discourse.

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh? A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Obviously, the results are far different here on our beloved GC. Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

Noted.

I believe "partial birth" is a particular procedure used for late term abortions, but that there are other methods (depending on how late we are talking).

It's only as harsh as telling someone they are going based on emotion and not logic and reasoning.

We've already discussed what a "potential human" can become.

This is funny.

Strange? Eh. Maybe. But too often everything is painted in terms of black and white that leave no room for the grey areas - and that's where I want to start. Not "NO ABORTIONS EVER!", nor "ABORTIONS WHENEVER!" but at "This is the point beyond which we can agree to no abortion on demand." (If we introduce the whole life of the mother/rape/incest thing, we'll derail again). Having established a point of agreement, then it's easier (I would hope) to work on things like helping each group work towards eliminating much of the NEED for abortion - something I hope everyone would get behind and support.



eta - and I'm missing the humor in referencing the original point of the thread, and whether or not there is a de facto limitation of abortion access. Ha ha? I've also somehow missed what it is that a fetus/potential human can become other than a human.

That's great that you actively support those around you, and I'm glad that you are happy with your decision. However, that does not give you the right to tell me that my decision was not right for me.

Oh drat. I didn't get the memo about losing the right to free speech. I really should try and make those constitutional meetings . . .

This discussion is circular now.

While some people believe in a NEVER and a WHENEVER with no exceptions, most people realize that life is much more complex than that. ETA: Even if they won't admit it because they want to present themselves in a particular light.

I find your attempts to direct the discussion funny.

Yeah, it wasn't fetus, but we discussed what happens if the embryo does not develop into a fetus. Is an embryo also a potential human? When does potential human begin?

Those are rhetoricals.

As I said when this thread first began, it was a peaceful discourse because it was a surface level discourse about a poll. The tone changed when depth was added to the discourse.

Disagreeing does not equal piling on - you've staked out a position on what you think is rational/logical, especially in regards with when a fetus becomes a human, and people are disagreeing with portions of that argument.

That's a big part of the legal argument, and a big part of the various court opinions (and personal opinions, for that matter) that have shaped the issue. Is the fetus a person at x number of weeks? If so, does that mean that the mother should have a right to abort after that time? Where do the state's interests come in? Those are all questions that, at least in part, go back to the issue of the fetus/human distinction.

And when people start acting like their backgrounds (legal, medical, logical, etc.) give them an intellectual "leg up" on everyone else in the discussion. It's an issue that touches so many different types of backgrounds that it can be easy for someone to claim an expertise that gives them more insight into the issue. At the end of the day, though, a person's expertise just gives perspective on one piece of the discussion.

I think AOIIAlum and MC went about it in a correct ways - she's a doctor (IIRC) and he's an attorney, and they could honestly have tried to own us all in this discussion. But, they gave their views, and didn't try to force their own experiences or viewpoints on anyone.

If we're talking religious beliefs, quite possibly. If we're talking in term of legal definitions, no.

Again, from a legal standpoint I would have to say no; otherwise the word "potential" is surplusage It is a potential human, meaning it is capable of becoming human, but is not yet human.

As I understand it, the Talmud would say it is an appendage of the mother and a being of "doubtful viability."
I think that what others have been saying is not that they disagree necessarily, but that given the fact that various religious or ethical perspectives can disagree on this (one traditional Hindu opinion is that a fetus becomes a person at 3 months), the law must rely on neutral/legal definitions of human. The question, then, is how is such a neutral principle to be decided on without appeal to religious or ethical authority. Many here have essentially expressed the opinion that viability provides that neutral principle. Why do you think it's more "rational" to say earlier? Simply saying "the fetus is a human" doesn't work -- the traditional Hindu view cited above would disagree, as, I think, would Exodus 21:22-23 and the Talmud. (Not that I mean to suggest that the Talmud supports abortion except in limited circumstances. It does not, but the position of traditional Judaism is not, as I understand it, based on the proposition that the fetus is a person prior to birth.)

ETA: Yes, I know I cited religious rather than neutral authority. I did so on purpose, because the reality is it is very hard to set one aside and focus on the other.

I thought we were discussing legal understandings, which is what you wanted, not piling on. ;)

I have. Twice.

It's not recognizing my message, so here goes -

eta - just saw your response, MC. Yes, you have - sorry not to have recognized that.:)
And KSig - "piling on" was used as a bit of hyperbole- see, I need that tongue in cheek smiley again!

Even the use of the term "partial-birth" is a term created for political purposes and doesn't reflect what happens medically; in fact, the term has been used to describe several types of late-term abortion.

For Dr. Phil's amusement
 

Okay, "pro-choicers" - are you at all concerned that this shift in thinking (the fact that many more label themselves "pro-life" than in the past) will result in a de facto limitation of access to abortion? If so, what if anything do you think should be done?

I haven't speculated on why the Gallup poll results came out the way they did because it would be just that - speculation.

Maybe it came out that way because the poll went from Thursday through Sunday, and the people polled had just been to church Wednesday night or Sunday morning when they received the call.

Maybe people who participated in tho poll had someone else in the room and, for fear of starting an argument with a loved one, said "Pro-life" instead of "pro-choice."

Maybe it came out the way it did because, for the first time in eight years, there is now a pro-choice POTUS, and pro-lifers feel the need to be more vocal than they had before.

Maybe it's because they had tacos for dinner.

Maybe it's just because they thought it'd be fun to press '1' for everything.

Who knows. :confused:

it is really a parasite until it's born. the fetus cannot live without the mother and that is the text book definition of what a parasite is. yes, the woman's rights will and should outweigh to a degree those of that which is living off of her.

i'll err on the side of the medical profession. 24 weeks sounds good to me.

no. because for the last 10 years, the majority of this "poll" has been pro-choice. this could be a valid "shift" or it could be an aberration and/or faulty sample. i wouldn't get excited over the results of one poll. and no, i wouldn't worry about it even if it was a valid shift, because i'd prefer the woman i'm dealing with to not have an abortion, anyway.

I think you missed the part of my post that I quoted above, Sydney K.

is a seed a tree? no. a fetus is not a human. it's a parasite. a potential human is something that is not yet human and thus not human.

Please learn how to quote properly; embeddding your responses is a massive pain in the ass to work with. Thanks!

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of QED. Wow.

OK - that's not at all how an appeal to authority works. You are appealing to authority by declaring an incorrect predicate for a "womens' rights" argument, then twisting the law into the argument even though it really doesn't address the argument in the slightest. You are appealing to authority by saying that a fetus must deserve rights because there is currently a Federal law on the books. This is not at all true, and even if we take it at face value, the causation connection should (at the least) run in the opposite direction - and, indeed, it sets up your false dilemma: the connection between 'dependent' and 'has rights' is fallacious, and the law itself makes distinctions and indicates multiple shades of gray. You are conflating issues that are not specifically or logically connected, then whitewashing it by saying "but we're talking about the law!" I can go into more detail if you'd like, but you are certainly going beyond the actual authority of Federal laws when making your claims, and they are not objectively true as a result.


You were (technically) using (sic) properly; you were, however, highlighting his typos, likely in an effort to discredit him as a result, which is a form of ad hominem attack. Attack the ideas, not the spelling - for real.


It's not minor at all - you are improperly defining terms to suit your argument, and narrowing the focus makes the terminology (and thus discussion) less accurate.


You did not say this. You should have.

This is not specifically true. An egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A fetus becomes a human being at a certain point - that's the entire discussion.

That's fine - it's just not a sound basis for law, I don't think.

I'll expound on this for you - you want to err on the side of caution in the law? Fine - but caution cannot come at the risk of unnecessarily limiting the options and rights of the population at large without a compelling interest.

The compelling interest here, as far as I can see, is "saving lives" - which requires you to determine that a fetus is a "human life" before it is medically viable, in order to fit your views. Why would a non-viable fetus be considered a human life? The only definitions that would allow this (that I can think of) are religion-based, or spiritual - that it has a "soul" or some other imbued property from conception. Since that is a craptacular basis for law, you have to use the best-available allowed standard: viability.

Now, come up with a compelling reason to use your definition of "life" (with evidence to support it) and I'm more than willing to consider it.

I think the problem with the "human" or "potential human" debate is that people are using two definitions of what is "human." If you mean a "human" as in the species, then yes, a fetus is a human and can only become a human. If, however, you mean that a fetus is human because it has the traits one associates with "humanity," i.e. a more esoteric definition, then "potential human" is accurate. In the end, whether or not the fetus is part of the human species does not change the fact that it cannot survive outside the mother before the point of viability (and even then is just a parasite of a ventilator until 28-29 weeks.)

Also, polling on this issue is notoriously shitty - in one classic survey, 54% of the population noted they were "pro-life" while 60% said they were against limiting first-trimester abortions. The lobbying terminology (the equally-douchey "pro-life" and "pro-choice") serve to confuse the issue, as well.

I wouldn't consider this at all a solid indicator of overall views, nor the population's leaning, nor would I even begin to consider it as a basis for current abortion policies.