Abortion Controversy: 50 Years Later

[mymistake]

Of course a fetus is alive. What we don't have is a God mandating that all human life is precious. Life is cheap and humans have over populated Earth.

 

We don't need God to mandate that human life is priceless. It just is. And life does not become cheap just because Earth is over-populated.

 

Do you have any idea how many humans died while you were typing that? I don't but I'm sure there were a few.

 

If you believe that, do you think killing people to save the environment would be all right?

 

I don't think such a situation has come up. But if it did I would not advocate allowing all life on Earth to die. Maybe someday we will face such a dilemma.

[raoul]

.... it's the WOMAN'S right to decide.

 

Okay. This is a naked assertion. I generally like to persuade myself that I know what a woman is, and I also like to believe that I know what decisions entail. However, I'm not at all certain what you intend to mean when you say "right".

 

What gives rise to rights? And what do rights entail?

Naked assertion? I was clothed when I wrote it. LOL

You sound like someone who simply loves hearing himself talk, ie: persuade yourself what a woman is and what the decisions entail that THEY make.

No, you do not. You only know what perhaps someone in your own life is thinking and I even doubt that. And if you can't comprehend what I meant by a woman's right to choose then continuing this thread is hopeless, at least with you.

 

Also, as a side note - it's rather interesting that practically ALL of the responses going back and forth are among males and NOT women except for one note so far.

I believe that makes my case better than I could regarding what I've said in the past about men shooting off their mouths regarding a woman's body and right to choose. You're not a woman and therefore have NO idea of how painful that decision is for so many of them.

 

One last thing - going back to 'life begins at conception' strawman. An embryo of a chicken or a lizard or almost any other animal including human is IDENTICAL. (source: Nova video regarding Darwinian concepts on YouTube). So this begs the question - why is life so precious regarding a human but not a chicken or lizard?

I'm asking a rhetorical question and need no response. In fact I don't really want one because I find most of the speeches being made over here rather self serving and boring.

[Legion]

Raoul, we have a saying here in the South. Bless your heart.

 

Uh, are you sure you won't reconsider trying to answer my questions? I didn't see where you addressed them.

[raoul]

Raoul, we have a saying here in the South. Bless your heart.

 

Uh, are you sure you won't reconsider trying to answer my questions? I didn't see where you addressed them.

1. I have no heart and

2. I believe I did answer your questions with my one statement - it's the woman's right, not yours. You then ask what do I mean by right? I guess I'd have to dig out my dictionary and give you the various definitions of same. Or, I can simply assume you're one of those people who just loves stringing people along with useless chatter.

I tend to tire quickly of word games. Sorry if that doesn't mean you but as said before, most of this topic wherever discussed is usually dominated by the very people so unqualified to talk about it - men.

 

And besides all of this useless chatter, Jen's initial comment merely posited the problem of this still being fought over after 50 years of its existence. That's the crux of the matter and nothing else as far as I'm concerned. I can take it one step further - if they ban abortion then how long before they ban mixed race marriages and then womens' voting rights? I'm sure you're wax profoundly about that but I'm not going to follow this thread any longer. I'm working on my book.

[Legion]

You then ask what do I mean by right? I guess I'd have to dig out my dictionary and give you the various definitions of same.

 

Well it seems relevant to me that if we are going to assert that people have various rights then it would be helpful to understand what rights are. I've increasingly found definitions to be less than helpful. These days if I wish to get a better grasp of something then I tend to ask questions of this form...

 

What entails it? What does it entail? And why?

 

But if you have no desire to explore this with me, then that's the way it is. I think it's a missed opportunity, but other opportunities will come.

[RankStranger]

I think the most salient point was that birth is a relatively insignificant event in terms of what the fetus actually is. So, in terms of the actual fetus, 'birth' is an arbitrary place to draw a line where abortion is OK beforehand but not OK afterward. All the distinctions are located elsewhere, in the relationship between the fetus and the mother.

 

I think the reason that birth is such a focus is because of appearances. A pregnant woman is perceived as a unit, a woman with a child as two units. Any place you draw the line will be arbitrary. If you draw the line at birth, a person's legal protection begins there. Three months or nine months does not so much differe in the act as in our perceptions of it. The more the thing looks like a human being, the more uncomfortable people are with doing away with it, but of course it is a human being even when it is indistinguishable from a mouse embryo. The big question for society is when does legal protection begin. I'm not in favor of placing that protection at conception or so early in the pregnancy that it makes things tough on the woman. As I have said, the fetus I do not care about.

 

I see it pretty much the same way. And I'll admit that any 'line' that's drawn will be arbitrary.

 

Before birth, the fetus is essentially part of the mother's body. And she's the only conscious entity in said body. Therefore I'd prefer that she have control of her body. The problem with drawing the line ANYWHERE else is that you are infringing on a CONSCIOUS person's control of their own body.

A few thoughts:

 

Ro: If it's acknowledged that there is no real difference between a fetus and a newborn, then what reasons would you give to someone to convince them not to care about fetuses? Making things easier on pregnant women does not seem to be a convincing reason when we're talking about newborns instead of fetuses. And as we've said, there is no real physical difference between the two.

 

Rank: I'm not clear on what you mean by conscious here. I think the fetus may be 'conscious' but not self-aware. More conscious than a rock, a tree, plankton, and some fish, less conscious than an adult human, a cat, and some fish. Also, I think it would be more accurate to say that before birth a fetus is a body within another body, not that it is all the mother's body. She is literally growing a body inside of her body. When we eventually grow fetuses in machines from conception, they will not be regarded as one body, it will be the fetus bodies within the machines. So I think there are actually 2 conscious entities and two bodies, where one conscious body that is not self-aware is within another conscious body that is.

 

I want to note here that you have combined two directions of abortion arguments. The first part is about the fetus: what is it and what are the moral consequences of that. The second is about the relationship between the mother and the fetus: who should have control when one body is within the other. I just want to note that these are distinct paths that have their own sets of arguments for and against. You're making a distinction regarding consciousness and autonomy over one's own body, which involves both.

 

To sharpen what it is you mean, maybe you can consider a few hypotheticals. What would you think about abortion if fetuses were self-aware from the moment of conception but still required the normal amount of time inside the womb? And what would you think about abortion if fetuses were as they are now in all respects except that they are grown in machines? I think your answers to these will flesh out your position.

 

I think it's clear enough what I mean by consciousness. And I'm not interested in those hypotheticals.

 

Thing is, I'm not fond of telling telling people what they may nor may not do with their own bodies. And I DO consider the rights of a conscious adult (or teenager) to be more important than those of an unconscious fetus. When a woman wants an abortion for whatever reason, somebody is gonna lose big in that situation (the mother or the fetus). I prefer to err on the side of letting individuals make their own decisions.

[Yrth]

To sharpen what it is you mean, maybe you can consider a few hypotheticals. What would you think about abortion if fetuses were self-aware from the moment of conception but still required the normal amount of time inside the womb? And what would you think about abortion if fetuses were as they are now in all respects except that they are grown in machines? I think your answers to these will flesh out your position.

I think it's clear enough what I mean by consciousness. And I'm not interested in those hypotheticals.

 

Thing is, I'm not fond of telling telling people what they may nor may not do with their own bodies. And I DO consider the rights of a conscious adult (or teenager) to be more important than those of an unconscious fetus. When a woman wants an abortion for whatever reason, somebody is gonna lose big in that situation (the mother or the fetus). I prefer to err on the side of letting individuals make their own decisions.

Why not? It's not a trap or anything, I'm just trying to locate your reasons.

It's not clear what you mean by conscious.

[OpheliaGinger]

I'll state my opinion. If I had a boyfriend and all of our protective measures failed and I got pregnant, I would notify him of my pregnancy and ask him what he wants (but the decision will ultimately come down to me as it is I who is carrying the fetus). If he absolutely want to have a baby, I will carry it, provided he pays for pre-natal care, and he can get full custody of the child, but if he doesn't he has to pay half of the abortion cost (the percentage paid might vary depending on our independent economics). If there are too many complications for me to continue with a pregnancy, I will abort even if I wanted a child because it is better to abort than to carry to full term and wind up dying and leaving the child without a parent.

[Ro-bear]

Ro: If it's acknowledged that there is no real difference between a fetus and a newborn, then what reasons would you give to someone to convince them not to care about fetuses? Making things easier on pregnant women does not seem to be a convincing reason when we're talking about newborns instead of fetuses. And as we've said, there is no real physical difference between the two.

 

I said I didn't care about fetuses, which is true, but as there are also many people I don't care about perhaps it would have been more to the point to say I do not care about the rights of a fetus. That is to say, I don't favor extending human rights to fetuses.

 

The only reason I would give to convince someone, if I were even inclined to do so, that they should not care about the rights of a fetus is that they themselves are not fetuses, so they don't have to worry about losing their rights. If they have a fetus, they can treat it as well as they wish or abort it as they choose. If it is someone else's fetus, there is no reason for them to inject themselves into that fetus's fate except to impose their own morals on another.

 

Most people act in their own self-interests. The reason I defend the rights of Muslims and Westboro Baptists is that I do not wish to lose the rights myself. My rights are best protected by a very broad coalition and blanket extension to all postpartum humans. I see no danger at all of abortion leading to postpartum infanticide.

[Carolorado]

Just a point here. I am old enough to remember BEFORE Roe v. Wade. I remember all the women who died or became sterile because of backroom abortions.

 

What most of you don't realize is that many, many BAPTISTS were for this decision. It was not an issue until the 1980s and the rise of the religious right.

The history of Roe v Wade is not discussed much, and we certainly don't hear about what happened to women, then. You will never hear any Baptist admit they were pro-Roe v. Wade, but there were plenty then who were.

 

So, all you men who want to step in, come on. But be ready to fork over some money. If you want all these embroyos born, then you pay for them. Otherwise, get out of the face of women. We are sick of controlling men. For many of us, it has a lot to do with why we left church.

 

And, to all the pro lifers: How many babies have YOU adopted? If you haven't adopted any, then STFU. Also, I want to know, when is the last time you tried to stop or protested an execution of a prisoner, especially one in a red state like, oh, I dunno, Texas? If you haven't, then drop the 'pro-life' line. You aren't pro life, you are anti-choice. BIG difference.

[SilentLoner]

Just a point here. I am old enough to remember BEFORE Roe v. Wade. I remember all the women who died or became sterile because of backroom abortions.

 

In the country where I grew up, El Salvador, abortion is illegal in ALL cases. Yes, all. In hospitals, its not uncommon for police to patrol the hospital, interrogating women who have miscarried. Plenty of women have gone to prison for suspected abortions. Poor women, of course. The wealthier population simply has to leave the country for them or bribe an OBGYN with a private practice.

 

 

And, to all the pro lifers: How many babies have YOU adopted? If you haven't adopted any, then STFU. Also, I want to know, when is the last time you tried to stop or protested an execution of a prisoner, especially one in a red state like, oh, I dunno, Texas? If you haven't, then drop the 'pro-life' line. You aren't pro life, you are anti-choice. BIG difference.

 

[SilentLoner]

And of course this is a mandatory vid on the subject:

 

[Yrth]

Ro: If it's acknowledged that there is no real difference between a fetus and a newborn, then what reasons would you give to someone to convince them not to care about fetuses? Making things easier on pregnant women does not seem to be a convincing reason when we're talking about newborns instead of fetuses. And as we've said, there is no real physical difference between the two.

I said I didn't care about fetuses, which is true, but as there are also many people I don't care about perhaps it would have been more to the point to say I do not care about the rights of a fetus. That is to say, I don't favor extending human rights to fetuses.

 

The only reason I would give to convince someone, if I were even inclined to do so, that they should not care about the rights of a fetus is that they themselves are not fetuses, so they don't have to worry about losing their rights. If they have a fetus, they can treat it as well as they wish or abort it as they choose. If it is someone else's fetus, there is no reason for them to inject themselves into that fetus's fate except to impose their own morals on another.

 

Most people act in their own self-interests. The reason I defend the rights of Muslims and Westboro Baptists is that I do not wish to lose the rights myself. My rights are best protected by a very broad coalition and blanket extension to all postpartum humans. I see no danger at all of abortion leading to postpartum infanticide.

 

Theoretically, then, if the situation were such that your rights were best protected by oppressing Muslims and Westboro, then you would do so because it would be in your own self-interest. Is that right? In other words, you extend rights to all post-partum humans because it is advantageous to you and not, for instance, because of anything in particular about post-partum humans?

 

I am a member of PETA and I am always ready to impose my morals with respect to animal rights onto other people even though their behavior has absolutely no effect on me. I like to think that I am defending animals who can't defend themselves, and once when I worked on an animal cruelty case I felt particularly self-righteous in doing so. I am not an animal myself (nor am I a fetus, not anymore), but I feel like I have good, moral reasons for imposing those values on other people. I'm not trying to make you out as an animal abuser or anything, but is this act of imposing morals on other people when my rights are absolutely safe either way something you would take exception to?

[WMDKitty]

Regardless of whether or not it's alive, a fetus does not have the right to use a woman's body without her explicit permission, that is, "I wish to be/remain pregnant."

 

And no. No. Before anyone goes there, consenting to sex is NOT consenting to pregnancy.

[Yrth]

The conversation with Rank is stalled, so I suppose I'll try to answer this now.

Tell me, why is the lost potential of a fetus

Although the arguments about potential and personhood are familiar to me, I'm not sure why you are bringing up "lost potential." We haven't been discussing potential. So far, we have been considering a fetus standing alone, not the future of that fetus. I don't actually think that arguments about 'potential' carry much weight, so there's no need to even go there. The fetus is what it is, a very small and utterly dependent human. You have your reasons for not valuing that kind of human, but IIRC you admitted earlier in this thread that there is no principled distinction between a late term fetus and a newborn. So, I think you have a problem going down that route.

a greater harm than the measurable harm that often ensues when a woman is forced to carry to term against her will?

So, we can rephrase: "Why is the destruction of a very small and utterly dependent human a greater harm than the measurable harm that often ensues when a woman is forced to carry to term against her will?"

 

You have here two scales: fetus life vs. mother life, fetus autonomy vs. mother autonomy. Because there is no significant distinction between what a fetus is before and after birth, and because I value a newborn's life the same as its mother's life, I can only conclude that the life vs. life scale is even. And, using this utilitarian frame that we are in, if she were carrying twins she would theoretically be the one who should die when it is their two lives against her one life. After all, two lives are worth more than one, isn't that right? And if it's something like triplets, the case is even stronger against the mother on this scale. Octuplets? There's not even a question. *I'm not advocating this view, in fact this is what is distasteful about utilitarianism, but it was your question which invoked it and I'm just playing along. : /

 

Autonomy is a different ball of wax. It is not a clear-cut thing, a hole-in-one for the pro-choice. Consider this: does a person's right to control their own body allow them to exercise that control if it means killing another person? Two other people? Three? Thirty? Where's the limit? It's not at all clear that the answer is "yes" in the case of one other person, much less thirty. What is so sacred about controlling your body that lets you end another arbitrarily? I have been looking and I haven't found anything, so I think we can set autonomy aside and focus on the life vs. life scale. And, like I said earlier, I think you have a logical problem going down that route, at least if you want to draw the line at birth.

[ExCBooster]

Wow. Ladies, we were late to this argument!

As a female of childbearing age, and one with a liking for natural history, let me just get my two cents in on "natural law" and "rights".

Humans are mammals, and we carry a fetus for about 9 months before it is delivered, which is a not insubstantial investment, from a purely metabolic point of view. Further care and raising of a baby is an even greater investment. Especially given that human children aren't really fully grown and independant until their twenties, anyhow. Heck, sexual maturity alone (not skeletal or neural) happens around thirteen-ish. That's an insane investment in children. Humans, especially, are prone to dangerous medical conditions in pregnancy, and have a rather dicey time in actual delivery. (Ignoring entirely social factors like loss of income, employment, social standing, possibility of ostracism, emotional consequences, etc. And that's just normal pregnancy, not pregnancy with life-threatening complications, or pregnancy from rape.)

A quick look around our mammal relations reveals lots of solutions for recouping investments on pregnancy in the case that things don't go well. Cats are just one of many mammals that reabsorb fetuses if the mother's under stress, or if the kittens are not going to be viable. Rabbits, like many others (they're just notorious for it because they're so flighty) will flip out and cannibalize their young if they are under resource, space, or emotional stress. Chimpanzees (especially females) commit infanticide with cannibalism.

What I'm trying to say is: nature doesn't operate in terms of "potential" or "rights." These things are socially determined.

I am a woman. I live in a society which has determined that I could be raped, I could be blamed for it, and I could face my life in tatters because if I get pregnant, any path I choose leads to social death. Abortion? You're a baby killer. What about fetal rights? Murderer. Carry the baby to term and adoption? Something grows inside you, living off your body for nine months, reshaping you radically, probably preventing you from working, while people talk behind your back about what a slut or helpless victim you are. Where's the father? They'll ask. You now have a choice: you're either the baby-momma, or you're the poor rape victim. Or BOTH.

And that's just a normal pregnancy, not even ectopic pregnancy, or other, actually life-threatening, things. Are fetuses people? In a situation where I couldn't get an abortion and it was life-threatening, someone's choosing another life over mine, just because I am a woman. Talk about a double standard.

Think about it, boys.

Would you kill someone over the right to use your body? Over the right to kill your future?

I don't know what I would do, but I want a choice.

[jensjam]

Yes, I realize I have opened a can worms with this topic. I have always tried to respect those on the Pro-life side of the issue until the last 2 years when I have seen various states including my own destroy a woman's right to choose if they wish to carry a child or not!NOT ONLY has that right been hinder or taken away BUT how a woman's body has become the property of not just a men BUT the clergy and the state! What is next for us to become chattle once more!

 

I don't want to sit here a debate when consciousness comes into being because we can back to the sperm and egg after all they are "alive". FOR that matter once that 1 sperm enters that egg the other sperm basically dies. So shouldn't men be held accountable for all those potential deaths? What about men who exercise a "certain" need be it by ones own hand or with a woman or man. WHY aren't these men than held for the death of potential life!

 

Why the Hell is it that women are held to this higher standard?

 

I do get away from the topic at hand: Okay I've come to realize that those on the pro-life side have basically been manipulated by certain men who have a more evil goal in mind. IT isn't just about protecting a life IT is about CONTROL and DOMINITATION of a certain group of people!

 

I AM NOT SAYING ALL MEN HAVE THIS MENTALITY Please do not put the title of male basher to me. I do believe there are men who are understanding and supportive of the choice view and I do understand there are men who support the view point of life who are pro life because they honestly believe in that view point of life being precious. I am saying there is a certain group of men that like to control and dominiate anything and everything they possibly can.

 

LOOK at all the various legislation that have happen during this time:

 

You have states like Alabama who are charging women with murder when they miscarry a baby.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

 

 

Look at the various abortion laws that have been passed in PA and the like where these laws are design to make abortions harder and more difficult for a woman to go through the abortion process. ALL of them have been written and sponsored by men!

 

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/abortion-laws.aspx

 

I don't know where the idea comes from that a woman gets an abortion like she is changing her nail color! It isn't that easy of a choice as many seem to believe! At least not all women feel that way.

 

NOT only that but THIS picture is going to go down in history as a VERY telling one:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/27/432729/darrell-issa-contraception-hearing/

 

Not to mention the bill Ryan and Akin sponsored--Before it was changed:

 

It isn't protecting life but it also determines how life would be created because IF that bill went ahead as it did it would have made invertrofertilazation illegal! NOT to mention the carivar of giving men free reign to rape and molest without it being called rape!

 

BASICALLY what we are seeing in the past 18 months some would say 24 months is the complete control of one part of the population by another. It is close to turning a woman into a piece of property with no thought or control over her life! NOT to mention the fact that these laws won't even bother to save the life of the mother over that of the unborn child! IF a woman dies in childbirth or because of childbearing why are not seeing laws that place the child inprison for murdering it's mother! Think I'm talking out of my ass LOOK at these laws that have been past!

 

It is coming down to what shape our country is forming: Are we going toward a theocracy where one religion dominiates and control ALL of the country? OR are we going to honor the founding fathers and the 1st amendment:

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

 

Which allows the everyone to practice their religion as they see fit. This is where abortion becomes a PERSONAL choice!

 

THe state and federal government should view it as a medical issue!

 

I write and worry about this because I have nieces and I fear this issue will effect them in one way or another.

 

I also am concern about freedom to choose because I WAS RAPED. I was tied down and someone forced themself onto me and into me!

 

My first sexual experience was that rape! I also grew up in such a sexually repressed household that my mother couldn't even explain the birds and bees to me!

 

I do not want to see ANY woman go through that experience in any way shape or form AND I do not believe ANY MAN has a right to control what happens to a woman's body! NO father! NO HUSBAND! NO PRIEST! NO LAWMAKER! THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE COMPLETE CONTROL SHOULD BE THAT OF WOMAN ALONE!

[buffettphan]

 

+1000 for post #43!

[ExCBooster]

 

+1000 for post #43!

 

Hear! Hear!

Bravissima, jensjam!

[Vigile]

I'm not sure why you are bringing up "lost potential."

 

Potential is the only thing that is taken from a fetus if it is aborted. You saying this line of thinking doesn't carry much weight simply sidetracks from the ONLY issue where the fetus itself is concerned.

 

You have your reasons for not valuing that kind of human

 

It sounds like you are basing your morality on this issue on something other than the harm factor. If morality is based on something other than harm, it seems to me it is appealing to something that doesn't exist, such as god's opinion or something along those lines.

 

My values are steeped in the principle that it is wrong to harm something or someone unnecessarily. As stated before, the only possible harm to a fetus that is aborted is loss of potential and since it can't contemplate this loss of potential, it doesn't care.

 

So, we can rephrase: "Why is the destruction of a very small and utterly dependent human a greater harm than the measurable harm that often ensues when a woman is forced to carry to term against her will?"

 

That would be an emotional appeal, that again sidetracks from the only issue of importance where a measurable moral issue is concerned -- harm.

 

What we have here is the loss of future potential in something that can't appreciate that loss, weighed against the mother who truly can be harmed and can fully appreciate that now. This is a losing battle from a moral perspective IMO unless you invoke god or some other form of magical thinking.

 

 

After all, two lives are worth more than one, isn't that right? And if it's something like triplets, the case is even stronger against the mother on this scale. Octuplets? There's not even a question.

 

All of this again just sidetracks from the harm factor. The fetus can't truly be harmed as I've demonstrated, but the mother can.

[Ro-bear]

Ro: If it's acknowledged that there is no real difference between a fetus and a newborn, then what reasons would you give to someone to convince them not to care about fetuses? Making things easier on pregnant women does not seem to be a convincing reason when we're talking about newborns instead of fetuses. And as we've said, there is no real physical difference between the two.

I said I didn't care about fetuses, which is true, but as there are also many people I don't care about perhaps it would have been more to the point to say I do not care about the rights of a fetus. That is to say, I don't favor extending human rights to fetuses.

 

The only reason I would give to convince someone, if I were even inclined to do so, that they should not care about the rights of a fetus is that they themselves are not fetuses, so they don't have to worry about losing their rights. If they have a fetus, they can treat it as well as they wish or abort it as they choose. If it is someone else's fetus, there is no reason for them to inject themselves into that fetus's fate except to impose their own morals on another.

 

Most people act in their own self-interests. The reason I defend the rights of Muslims and Westboro Baptists is that I do not wish to lose the rights myself. My rights are best protected by a very broad coalition and blanket extension to all postpartum humans. I see no danger at all of abortion leading to postpartum infanticide.

 

Theoretically, then, if the situation were such that your rights were best protected by oppressing Muslims and Westboro, then you would do so because it would be in your own self-interest. Is that right? In other words, you extend rights to all post-partum humans because it is advantageous to you and not, for instance, because of anything in particular about post-partum humans?

 

 

You would need to flesh out your hypothetical before I could respond.

[Yrth]

For the record, I have always conceded that human life begins at conception.

I think that's true in a biological sense, but certainly not in the sense where actual harm can be measured. In my mind, loss of future potential in a life form that can't contemplate the concept of potential is not harm.

 

This gets stickier when moving from fetuses to actual babies as likely the same argument can be applied to them as well. That I concede. I guess here it just comes down to the fact that you have to draw a line somewhere.

This is the main reason why I think you're wrong in your harm analysis. I and I would think most people could never accept an argument that authorizes killing 'actual babies' simply because they would not be aware of the harm done to them. Awareness of harm is really the only distinguishing factor here, not harm itself, because contrary to what you're saying there is harm to both in the here and now. Death, after all, is a harm. Newborns can be harmed, mothers can be harmed, and fetuses can be harmed by dying, notwithstanding their awareness or appreciation of their death. In other words, just because you are not aware of something does not mean it hasn't happened and it does not render it into mere 'lost potential.'

 

The only reason I'm conflating 'fetus' with 'newborn' is because I'm talking about very late-stage fetuses that are physically indistinguishable from newborns. The discussion is about the relevancy of birth to abortion, and I simply agree that it's not all that relevant as far as the fetus is concerned. To anyone interested in what I actually think, pm me and I'll send you a link to the thread where I spell it out.

[Vigile]

This is the main reason why I think you're wrong in your harm analysis. I and I would think most people could never accept an argument that authorizes killing 'actual babies' simply because they would not be aware of the harm done to them

 

This doesn't mean I'm wrong, it simply means we as a people have decided to protect babies, regardless of the fact they can't appreciate their future potential. We as a people haven't assigned the same protection to fetuses. Rousseau's general will.

 

Anyway you turn this, it's going to come down to these two factors. What people generally think and harm. Again, it's impossible to be harmed if you have no possibility of appreciating harm.

 

Death, after all, is a harm.

 

Death is a harm for one simple reason. We value life. A fetus, and likely a baby (debatable perhaps at this point) don't value life.

 

What is lost if you take life from something that can't value it?

[Legion]

We value life. A fetus, and likely a baby (debatable perhaps at this point) don't value life.

 

I agree that most of us value life, one way or another. But I don't understand how you can so confidently assert that a fetus, or even something as seemingly mundane as an omeba does not value life.

 

I'm not at all convinced that 'values' arise soley within minds.

[Vigile]

I told you directly and publicly I have no desire to engage you in any way.