The rights of the unborn

[hohum]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3561951.stm

The story is that of a women who allegedly refused an emergency caesarean in the US and as a result one of her twins was still born.

However the story goes on to say this:

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has already passed by 254 to 163 in the House of Representatives, which rejected a Democratic-led alternative that would have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women in which the foetus is injured or killed without conferring new rights on foetuses."

It has been passed as although it is seen to be giving more rights to foetuses than the women carrying them, it is argued that this is precisely what is needed to protect the unborn from callous mothers. However people are worried that more and more rights will be given to foetuses until the pro life people are in a position to challenge the Roe v Wade case, a 1973 Supreme Court ruling that said that a woman has the right to have an abortion. We know that George Bush himself is anti abortion, as are many Americans.

So what do you think? That this act is a good thing and doesn't necessarily mean that a women's right to abortion will eventually be challenged? Or are you in fact actually anti abortion yourself? It's an interesting topic but perhaps not very well discussed as people tend to feel very strongly about it one way or the other.

[iohannes]

I find the idea that an unborn foetus (foetus mind - not baby) could potentially have more rights than a mother ridiculous. I am firmly pro-choice. I do not think abortion should be used as a contraceptive, but it is the right of every woman to have control over their bodies. While you may not agree with abortion for religious and ehtical reasons, that is purely YOUR choice. Not anyone elses and you shouldn't force other people to conform to your will. If this means that they are allowed to abort foetuses because of medical or ethical reasons, then that is their right. I find a lot of the arguments used by pro-lifers are similar to those used by people who thought the combined pill would bring about the end of civilisation as we know it. In reality it just gave control of a woman's body back to that woman.

Rights of the living outweigh rights of the unborn. It is your right to deny medical treatment. No-one can be forced into having any surgery. If I had the bone marrow that would save a leukemia victims life but I refused to donate, would I be guilty of murder. Ethically and morally, perhaps I would be responsible for their death because I refused to save their life, but I wouldn't have killed them. This is not quite the same situation but is similar.

No doubt I will be flamed for this post. I would just like to remind people that one of the most vocal pro-abortion voices in the 1960s in this country was the Mother's Union. Mainly because legalised abortions stop backstreet coathanger abortions which can cause serious harm and danger to women.

[Jonny_G]

[s]iohannes wrote on 17:16, 24th Mar 2004:
No doubt I will be flamed for this post.


I agree with everything you wrote.

[Andrew Cusack]

I find the idea that an unborn foetus (foetus mind - not baby) could potentially have more rights than a mother ridiculous.

What about giving it equal rights with the mother, id est: giving it the right to live.

And when does the foetus become a baby? When it's born? What about when it's halfway out? Is it then only half human? What about one second before it's out? Can we kill it then?

It is the right of every woman to have control over their bodies.

Of course. But why are they allowed to exert control over others, ie: the one in their womb?

While you may not agree with abortion for religious and ehtical reasons, that is purely YOUR choice. Not anyone elses and you shouldn't force other people to conform to your will.

Yet unborn children who have committed no crime whatsoever must conform to the will of their mother. Or father, as often women are pressured into abortions by their partners.

I find a lot of the arguments used by pro-lifers are similar to those used by people who thought the combined pill would bring about the end of civilisation as we know it. In reality it just gave control of a woman's body back to that woman.

Certainly not the end of civilisation, but it made the world less civil. In the years after Roe v. Wade in the U.S., child abuse more than tripled.

Rights of the living outweigh rights of the unborn.

Any biologist will tell you: the unborn ARE alive. They're just in a different geographical position than those who are born. They happen to exist within a womb rather than outside.

[Rapunzel]

[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 17:36, 24th Mar 2004:[/i]
often women are pressured into abortions by their partners.[/i]

Where did you get that statistic from?

[Andrew Cusack]

[s]Rapunzel wrote on 17:40, 24th Mar 2004:
[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 17:36, 24th Mar 2004:
often women are pressured into abortions by their partners.

Where did you get that statistic from?


Roseanne Reddy, a Glasgow social worker who works with pregnant women.

[iohannes]

[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 17:36, 24th Mar 2004:
What about giving it [i]equal rights with the mother, id est: giving it the right to live.[/i]

But pro-lifers are not giving it equal rights. They are giving it superior rights. They are saying that the baby has to be born even if that results in the death of the mother because abortion is wrong, full stop. It is relying upon a grey issue being black and white.

And when does the foetus become a baby? When it's born? What about when it's halfway out? Is it then only half human? What about one second before it's out? Can we kill it then?

A foetus is a human embryo from the end of the 2nd month until birth. I never said it wasn't human, that is you twisting my words because you refuse to face the fact that a foetus - reliant upon the mother's life support - is not alive in the same way that the mother is.

It is the right of every woman to have control over their bodies.

Of course. But why are they allowed to exert control over others, ie: the one in their womb?

Because it is their womb! Do you not understand that when a woman becomes pregnant she does not forfeit her rights by doing so.

While you may not agree with abortion for religious and ehtical reasons, that is purely YOUR choice. Not anyone elses and you shouldn't force other people to conform to your will.

Yet unborn children who have committed no crime whatsoever must conform to the will of their mother. Or father, as often women are pressured into abortions by their partners.

It is not about committing crimes or about being punished. It is about the fact that a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion if giving birth would result in serious medical difficulties for the women. It is about putting a living, talking, walking human life and its health above that of something that is not. In the case of women being forced into abortions, I agree that that is wrong. But what you are failing to take into account is that if these women are being to forced to have abortions, do you think making abortions illegal would stop this practice? The women would be forced to have illegal abortions creating more health problems. What pro-lifers do not understand is that in some cases an abortion is the right to do. By making it illegal you taking this choice away from women and forcing them to accept potential medical difficulties just because YOU are uncomfortable with the idea. That is, my friend, is Fascism. Pure and simple. Forcing people to conform to your wishes.

I find a lot of the arguments used by pro-lifers are similar to those used by people who thought the combined pill would bring about the end of civilisation as we know it. In reality it just gave control of a woman's body back to that woman.

Certainly not the end of civilisation, but it made the world less civil. In the years after Roe v. Wade in the U.S., child abuse more than tripled.

I'd like to see your evidence for this. Is it actual cases, or percentage cases? Is it reported cases or unreported cases. Commonsense would dictate that child abuse would decline with the advent of efective contraception, and even abortion, because there is a means of preventing the birth of unwanted children. I think your evidence for this is shakey.

Rights of the living outweigh rights of the unborn.

Any biologist will tell you: the unborn ARE alive. They're just in a different geographical position than those who are born. They happen to exist within a womb rather than outside.


Perhaps "living" was the wrong word to use. May I suggest the following "The rights of those already born and having reached maturity outweigh the rights of the unborn"? But I don't suppose that will make you happier.

[CrazyMel]

To state that a fetus is not a baby is simply ridiculous. In fact, I am not quite sure why people insist on differentiating between "fetus" and "child". It really speaks to the selfishness of the human race when we dehumanize unborn children to make the reality of the situation seem less disturbing than it truly is. I have found that no one can be forced either way on this topic, but perhaps you might think again next time before you categorize a human being, as tiny as he or she may be.

[hr]The Conologue!

[iohannes]

[s]CrazyMel wrote on 18:17, 24th Mar 2004:
To state that a fetus is not a baby is simply ridiculous. In fact, I am not quite sure why people insist on differentiating between "fetus" and "child". It really speaks to the selfishness of the human race when we dehumanize unborn children to make the reality of the situation seem less disturbing than it truly is. I have found that no one can be forced either way on this topic, but perhaps you might think again next time before you categorize a human being, as tiny as he or she may be.

I never said a foetus wasn't a child. I said it wasn't a baby. If you look in a dictionary you'll see that a "foetus" is an unborn child and a "baby" is a newborn child. Before you slur me and call me "selfish", please actually read what I write.

[Plette]

I am a woman, and I am (and have always been) pro-choice. Of course, there are many moral issues involved with the issue of abortion, and religious issues for those who are religious, but in my mind it ultimately boils down to a matter of a woman's right to choose what does or does not go on in her body. I don't think abortion is a choice that any woman would make lightly, but I feel very strongly that it should be an option available to any woman.

I couldn't answer the question of "when" an unborn child becomes a child in the womb, and in fact I don't think anyone can for certain. Yet I would remind everyone on the board that abortions typically take place in the first trimester when the fetus is little more than a collection of cells and has no thought of its own...and in my mind, one of the primary elements of life is independant thought. It may be 'alive in a different way,' but so are trees and chickens. I believe there is a certain point before which a fetus is not yet a person, and this is when they perform abortions. No doctor in their right mind would ever perform an abortion in the seventh month, for example.

If it is murder to deny the right of life, is it murder to prevent conception taking place by being on contraceptives? With some contraceptives (such as the IUD), the egg can be fertilised by the sperm, so conception could take place...but the fertilised egg is prevented from implanting in the uterus lining and is lost in menstruation while still in very early development. Is this murder? I think most people would consider such an idea ridiculous. Yet life is being denied to those cells.

Abortions (which are usually performed very early in pregnancy) are simply an extension of that same idea.

Edited to add: I want to make it clear, this is not an attempt to convince people of my viewpoint, but rather to explain why I think what I do. As was said above, this is not the type of issue where people can really be convinced to change their minds, and I would never attempt to do so. I disagree vehemently with pro-lifers, but I understand that they hold their views as stronly as I hold mine, and I respect their right to their own opinions.

[iohannes]

I agree that pro-lifers have the right to hold their views; I never advocated stopping them holding their views. That is actually what pro-choice is. It is not about necessarily supporting abortion, it is about not stopping other people from choosing. I personnally think the rules on abortion are very good ones. As Plette points out the rules governing the time an abortion can take place are very strict. I do not, however, think there is anything to be gained from emotionally talking about "killing" and the like. Biologically we "kill" cells all the time. It is just that these cells have the potential to ultimately becoming another human being. Yet when an abortion takes place, these cells still only have the potential - a lot can go wrong. I'm not sure the exact figures, but lots of pregnancies end in the womb for various reasons, often without the woman even knowing about it. I was merely advocating that on a scale of rights a foetus has less rights than the mother; and that in questions of medical necessity, the mother's right to live should always be put above the foetuses right to live. I also do not think you should legislate against cases the original poster was highlighting. Obviously it is very sad and shouldn't have ended like it did; but by making emergency Caesarean's compulsary you are entering the slippery slope of government enforced medical procedures. A very dangerous slope to be on.

[hohum]

[s]iohannes wrote on 19:00, 24th Mar 2004:
That is actually what pro-choice is. It is not about necessarily supporting abortion, it is about not stopping other people from choosing.


Excellent point. I agree completely with your first post as well, not sure why you thought you'd get flamed for it though? At the end of the day it boils down to not forcing your beliefs on to others and thus denying them the right to a freedom of choice. The situation in the US looks quite dangerous to me with many saying the pro life camp are bit by bit trying to get it to the stage where they can bring a case for banning abortions altogether, and that would be an almighty step backwards in my opinion.

[Chain Mailer]

No doubt I will be flamed for this post.

NO way! Brilliant statement! totally agree, it's a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, it's not like the foetus has any concept of anything else! You're right in saying that abortions shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, that's just laziness and irresopnsible, but if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant I think she should be allowed to abort the foetus as I doubt the child would grow up in a loving environment and the stress on the woman would be horrific!
Go Pro Choice!
[hr]
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious

[Happy-Go-Lucky]

So much of society's beliefs and customs have evolved from man keeping woman in her place and preventing her to rise to his level. Dare I say, that if men were the ones who had to give birth to children and look after them, then there would be much more general acceptance of abortion and the bearer's rights. But because the woman is the child-bearer, all responsibility is left on her and she is expected to suffer the consequences without much say of her own wishes.

It is the same with many similar aspects. If a couple have an accidental pregnancy, the woman is often critisised for not being more careful, but we seldome hear the same critisism for the man. In fact, quite often the man is given sympathy for having "fallen victim to a careless woman".

[CrazyMel]

Dearest johannes,

I was simply commenting on the fact that you made a point of differentiating between a baby and a fetus. For what it's worth, I believe a baby is a baby is a baby. Whether it is in the womb or not. I also suspect that, as I mentioned before, people in general are all too willing to label unborn children as "fetuses" because doing so somehow makes the act of abortion artificial, less tangible. Essentially, it is easier on the conscience to do away with a "bunch of cells" than it is a baby. But my point is, I think we're forgetting that at the end of the day, it's still a little person. Am I wrong?

p.s. I called the human race selfish, not just you.
[hr]The Conologue!

[Chain Mailer]

[s]Happy-Go-Lucky wrote on 23:13, 24th Mar 2004:
It is the same with many similar aspects. If a couple have an accidental pregnancy, the woman is often critisised for not being more careful, but we seldome hear the same critisism for the man. In fact, quite often the man is given sympathy for having "fallen victim to a careless woman".


Too right, alas most of the basis of our society seem to favour men (and no this isnt a feminist bitchmoan its a fact) The English language is a major element to this, especially with primiscuity (sorry have no idea how to spell it, basically sleeping around) Women get names like whore, slut, slag etc while men get only positive connotaions like stud, player etc. The phrase male whore or male slut are used but this implies that the words whore and slut are female based and you have to make a definition when refering to a guys in this way. (ok mayb this is a bit of a moan but not a bra burning feminist one!) Anyways... I think I did have a point but have forgotten it so... yeah Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent to the actual thread!

[hr]
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious

[katiem]

"bra burning feminist one"

Feminists never burned bras in the 1960's or 70's. Popular misconception, though. (Sorry, that was a really annoying comment on my part, but I couldn't help myself.)

[iohannes]

[s]CrazyMel wrote on 00:15, 25th Mar 2004:
I was simply commenting on the fact that you made a point of differentiating between a baby and a fetus. For what it's worth, I believe a baby is a baby is a baby. Whether it is in the womb or not.

That's fair enough. I was merely pointing out that from a dictionary and a medical point of view a foetus and a baby are too different things. Until the advent of premature and infant ICU machinary, a foetus' survival was dependent upon the mother's life support systems, a baby survives upon its own.

I also suspect that, as I mentioned before, people in general are all too willing to label unborn children as "fetuses" because doing so somehow makes the act of abortion artificial, less tangible.

I label them foetuses because that's what they are. I agree the use of language does stain this argument. Language like "killing", etc.

Essentially, it is easier on the conscience to do away with a "bunch of cells" than it is a baby.

Not at all. The assumption is always made by pro-lifers that an abortion is an "easy" option. I'm sure if you spoke to the majority of women who have had abortions it would be the hardest decision of their lives, and one not made lightly. You may perhaps mean it's easier on the doctor's conscience. Well that's good. Doctors make life and death decisions every day of their lives. If they need crutches to prevent the situation from overwhelming them, then so be it. Also you are choosing to ignore the facts about abortion. That is that when the abortion happens the foetus is just a bunch of cells, not a baby. It is not even close to being a baby; it is more like a cancer than another human being since it possesses no neurological function.

But my point is, I think we're forgetting that at the end of the day, it's still a little person. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. It has the potential to be a "little person" but at the stage where abortions are legal, it is not a little person. It is anencephalus and on the whole without most vital organs.

The argument always goes this way. Pro-lifers accuse pro-choicers of condoning murder. Pro-choicers point out that the foetus is in the earliest stages of development and therefore not actually anything more than a collection of cells with the potential to become a baby. Pro-lifers scream that it is a baby, ignoring medical and scientific facts. And the circle goes on. My MAIN points was that the pro-choice point of view is that it is up to the individual case and women, not up to screeching people in the street with banners and the will to murder doctors. Not that I am saying that all pro-lifers are that fanatical, but I refuse to accept any group that resorts to terrorist and fanatical processes.

[josie]

no you are not wrong at all!!!!!!!!!

http://www.afterabortion.org/abuse.html Here is a link to an articial that talks about how child abuse has risin.

Here are some other satistics about abortions. Now is every single person, out of the 46 million, having an abortion because a baby can risk their life. If you believe that then you are very misguided. The fact is yes, if a women if pregnant and the baby could risk her life then she has a right to have an abortion, but as the satistics below show, many abortions are taking place because people are being selfish and not taking responsiblity for their actions.

In 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal
In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal
There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year
There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day.

[josie]

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby<
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
7.9% of women want no (more) children
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

Here are even more satistics about abortion and if you look closely you will see that only 2.8% of the women had abortions due to a risk of their health.


Here is some more interestng facts about abortion. (U.S. related)

Revolutionary War - 4,435 deaths
Civil War (both sides) - 498,332 deaths
World War I - 116,708 deaths
World War II - 407,316 deaths
Korea - 25,604 deaths
Vietnam - 58,168 deaths
Total killed due to abortion since 1973 - 35,000,000 (35 MILLION) deaths