Abortion - Right to Life or Property?

[SicSemper]

Here's an opinion article I wrote last fall for a class. I just wanted to spark some debate about abortion with the comparison I offer here. Please let me know what you think of the issue and the article.

We can all agree that one of the greatest blights on the history of this nation is the dehumanizing injustice that was slavery. Over 4 million people were being deprived of their basic human rights at the beginning of the Civil War, rights to life, liberty and property.

They were, according to scientific evidence and majority opinion, not really human, inferior beings, rendering their rights null and void.

Now, we can look back and denounce the utter fallacy of these views and scientific evidence, despite the support for slavery during that time. I can not help but ask the question: how could so many people be so wrong?

We need to consider that question today. Over the past three decades, over 40 million people have been deprived of their basic human rights.

Scientific evidence and majority opinion today hold that an embryo or fetus is not really a person. In Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion, the Supreme Court deemed that a fetus is part of a woman’s body. The main area of contention in the abortion debate hinges does what we considered human. We differ on what we consider the point where the fetus becomes an individual worthy of rights. Is it the point of conception? Is it three weeks? Is it three months? Does the fetus become a person of its own only at birth?

The embryo and the fetus are initial stages in human life. Even if we consider the stages precursory, it will at some point become human. As a result, we have to pick a point that distinguishes human from non-human.

So how are we to pick this point and determine what is human and what is not?

We can base it on appearance or development. An embryo certainly doesn’t have the same appearance as an adult human or even an infant. We can consider it non-human or pre-human because it’s brain has not developed yet or its hands or eyes have not yet formed. We can judge its similarity to other animal embryos and conclude that it’s more like an animal than a human.

But wait, this seems a bit too familiar. In the 1800s, many considered Blacks an intermediate step between humans and monkeys. They didn’t look normal, nothing like men in the Greco-Roman or Renaissance paintings and sculptures. Of course Europeans were the pinnacle of creation, their’s was the most developed culture, their’s the most rational science and knowledge. Blacks had created nothing. They had no science. They were incapable of grasping European reason and thought.

Of course this is utterly illogical and wrong. But what do we consider our thought and science today? Is not it the best in the world? Our science is infallible and the ultimate justification of everything. We are guilty of a vanity similar to that of many of our predecessors.

We should not denounce science and logic as false. Rather, let us be careful how much faith we place in ourselves. History is a catalogue of human fallibility. Compare now to then and consider the similarities. We can not be afraid to be wrong, otherwise, we are guilty of the close-mindedness from which science is supposed to free us.

Can we say without a doubt that an embryo is not really human? It certainly develops into human life at some point.

With human life potentially on the line, can we afford to take a chance?

We are better off “safe than sorry”.

We must ask the question: can we be wrong?

[tmosley]

To paraphrase Ghengis Khan, "Why spare children? It is better save a tree than a child. If a tree is destroyed, it takes many years for a new one to grow in its place. Any two people can make a new child in just a few months."

Of course, that is overly brutal. My own opinion is that a fetus is both a person and a parasite (which it is--literally). A woman has the right to maintain her body in any way she sees fit, and her rights supersede those of the fetus. If someone else kills the fetus without her permission, then it is murder. If the mother does it, it is her prerogative, much like a conjoined twin might opt to severe the connection with their twin, even if it will kill the other.

If a person doesn't have a right to control their own body, then they have no rights at all.

[rmodel65]

what gets my goose, is that we have endangered wildlife "laws". but when it comes to our species we readily dispose. no sense at all

[Truth Warrior]

Who owns you?

[DamianTV]

Its not my place to tell someone else how to live their lives. And as soon as we get Government involved in anything, the resuts are usually worse than the original problem.

Pro Choice. Not my call to tell you you cant abort, or smoke with kids in your own house. Dont tell me I cant eat bacon in mine.

[acptulsa]

If a person doesn't have a right to control their own body, then they have no rights at all.

I certainly agree with this. It seems to me this actually still leaves the abortion on demand question up in the air, as people must accept the consequences of their actions when they gamble. I will oppose with every fiber of my being, however, any attempt to deprive any woman of the right to have an abortion after being raped.

Not only because it isn't fair to the victim, but because to do anything else will encourage rapists.

[Truth Warrior]

It seems to me that a solution to a huge part of the abortion problem is:

Prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I realize that would seem to require taking personal responsibility and accountability for one's personal sexual behavior, so it probably doesn't really stand much of a chance of being widely adopted. :(

[amy31416]

It seems to me that a solution to a huge part of the abortion problem is:

Prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I realize that would seem to require taking personal responsibility and accountability for one's personal sexual behavior, so it probably doesn't really stand much of a chance of being widely adopted. :(

That's about it. It's about personal responsibility and education of our young people. Perhaps confronting the reality that young people do actually have sex would help a bit too.

Tough for parents, but it's part of the responsibility of raising kids. Acknowledging that even if parents do the best job possible, it could still happen anyways. It's a biological urge.

[Truth Warrior]

That's about it. It's about personal responsibility and education of our young people. Perhaps confronting the reality that young people do actually have sex would help a bit too.

Tough for parents, but it's part of the responsibility of raising kids. Acknowledging that even if parents do the best job possible, it could still happen anyways. It's a biological urge.
Sex is for grownups and not for children. :) Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Thanks!

[amy31416]

Sex is for grownups and not for children. :) Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Thanks!

I'm aware of that, you're aware of that--and now, while I didn't partake in such activities as a "kid" I was quite aware that certain other students did. In fact there were two pregnant girls in 7th grade. Should I have assumed virgin conceptions?

In high school, plenty of kids have sex--or did you go to an all-boys school?

I was, essentially, agreeing with you. You just love to nitpick to find an argument, eh? You must be so pleasant to be friends with.

[acptulsa]

I was, essentially, agreeing with you. You just love to nitpick to find an argument, eh? You must be so pleasant to be friends with.

I actually think he was essentially agreeing with you, too, amy. Once upon a time, kids married younger than they do today (though you have to go back a long way to find it). They say kids grow up faster these days, but I wonder if that's it or if we just hold them back longer? And if they really do mature faster, why isn't society adjusting to that?

Society is a strange and awkward thing...

[Truth Warrior]

I'm aware of that, you're aware of that--and now, while I didn't partake in such activities as a "kid" I was quite aware that certain other students did. In fact there were two pregnant girls in 7th grade. Should I have assumed virgin conceptions?

In high school, plenty of kids have sex--or did you go to an all-boys school?

I was, essentially, agreeing with you. You just love to nitpick to find an argument, eh? You must be so pleasant to be friends with.
What nit did I pick and what argument did I find?

[Mahkato]

Abortion is a political issue primarily because we can't all agree on when life begins. I have a couple of ethical reasons why I don't believe that this "point of human-ness" should even be an issue at all.

First, the fetus has a unique DNA sequence from the moment of conception, which means that it is biologically unique from its mother and is not a part of her body, but a separate entity within it. Call it a parasite if you want, but it is no more a part of the mother's body than is the burrito she ate that day.

Second, under current law we have grotesque power over the fetus. Hypothetically speaking, a pregnant mother could legally opt to have in utero surgery on her fetus to physically harm it and then carry it to term, profoundly affecting the new child for its entire life. The actions of the mother when the fetus had no legal rights, removing its limbs, for example, have consequences that last into the time when the child does have legal rights. Ending the fetus' life has an even more profound effect on its future life by eliminating it entirely. This is very worrisome philosophically and ethically. Fortunately no woman has actually mutilated her fetus in this fashion, but our society has no qualms about regularly terminating pregnancies.

Whether or not it's possible to have "future rights" is a philosophical discussion and I haven't really reached a conclusion yet on this subject. But let's start with an analogy:

If I am a duke, and I slay the crowned prince, I have prevented that prince from becoming king when his father dies. No, I have not killed the king, but on the day when the dead prince's father dies, it could be said that I have killed the person who would have been king. By killing him as a prince, I prevented him from his reign as king, even though I would not be tried in court on charges of killing the king. We kill our fetuses because it's easier to do, psychologically, than killing our infants.

If the prince eats some bad mushrooms and dies before becoming king, his reign as king has not been forcibly taken from him, but ruined by chance. Natural abortion, AKA miscarriage, is just fate. No one's rights are being violated.

The average fetus will, if left to the natural course of pregnancy and birth, mature and be born around 70 or 80 percent of the time. If we interfere with that process, we are at fault.

The established "point of human-ness" (currently set at the point of viability outside the womb in many jurisdictions) is likely to move earlier and earlier as medical technology progresses. The gestational age at which a premature infant can survive is becoming increasingly earlier thanks to amazing advances. Assuming technology continues to advance, how can we possibly set the date of viability when 10, 20, or 100 years from now the point of viability will be much earlier? Abortion is so troubling for me on ethical grounds.

One reason abortion is easy for us is because its target is unseen and thus easy to forget about. As technologies like GE's 4-D ultrasound develop and come into wider use, I think that more people will see the fetus as human because its human form is so undeniable once you actually see it. I had the privilege of seeing the BodyWorlds exhibit a couple of years ago. As part of the exhibit they had some preserved fetuses at each stage of development. It was truly amazing how small these little things are and yet how human they look. Very moving.

I'm guessing that within 50 years abortion will be largely shunned. Also within 50 years, we'll probably have much more effective means of birth control. So hopefully this problem will solve itself.

[amy31416]

I actually think he was essentially agreeing with you, too, amy. Once upon a time, kids married younger than they do today (though you have to go back a long way to find it). They say kids grow up faster these days, but I wonder if that's it or if we just hold them back longer? And if they really do mature faster, why isn't society adjusting to that?

Society is a strange and awkward thing...

Not sure on those counts--if anything I matured later than most of my peers, biologically speaking. Later than my mother even. But I'm sure I'm in the minority and a lot of it had to do with genetics and/or being rail-thin and a distance runner.

I think kids may possibly mature faster biologically, perhaps because of hormones in milk or because of more plentiful food supply, just guessing. Emotionally, I think sometimes it's pushed by media or peers. But there's also the antithesis to this which comes in the form of the "career." Many women aren't having children as young as they used to because that's where their focus is on their jobs.

So, I guess your perception of it is based on your experiences and observations, which vary from person to person and geographic areas and the culture you're raised in.

[Truth Warrior]

I actually think he was essentially agreeing with you, too, amy. Once upon a time, kids married younger than they do today (though you have to go back a long way to find it). They say kids grow up faster these days, but I wonder if that's it or if we just hold them back longer? And if they really do mature faster, why isn't society adjusting to that?

Society is a strange and awkward thing...
Personally, I think it's partly the growth hormones and other junk in our food and diets.

Thanks! :)

[Ozwest]

Written laws will not determine rates of pregnancies. You can't legislate teenage sex.

This endless debate is ridiculous.

[amy31416]

What nit did I pick and what argument did I find?

Seemed to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that the nit you picked was that you dismissed what I said about parents having to teach responsibility to their kids because they do, in fact, have sex, often prior to turning 18. You said something along the lines of "sex is for adults," which I don't disagree with, but there are plenty of people under the age of 18 having sex, and that's the reality. It's also likely that they are often ones who may seek to have an abortion or do stupid things like try to flush their baby down a toilet.

Thanks!

[Truth Warrior]

Seemed to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that the nit you picked was that you dismissed what I said about parents having to teach responsibility to their kids because they do, in fact, have sex, often prior to turning 18. You said something along the lines of "sex is for adults," which I don't disagree with, but there are plenty of people under the age of 18 having sex, and that's the reality. It's also likely that they are often ones who may seek to have an abortion or do stupid things like try to flush their baby down a toilet.

Thanks!
I didn't dismiss/comment on it because we are in agreement.

Repeat, sex is for grownups and not for children. Problems/issues/nits/arguments?

[Ozwest]

When Bill Clinton re-defined the definition of sex, I was somewhat jealous of my much younger friends. Ahhh Glory days.

Has birth control become more difficult?

I mean really... How hard can it be?

[amy31416]

Repeat, sex is for grownups and not for children. Problems/issues/nits/arguments?

Only that despite the fact that sex is for "grownups," kids still have sex and probably always will.

[Truth Warrior]

Only that despite the fact that sex is for "grownups," kids still have sex and probably always will.
If the parents and grandparents had children while they were children themselves, it does tend to make adequate and responsible parenting much more difficult. Kids don't tend to respond well to, "Do as I say, not as I did".

[Ozwest]

It seems to me that a solution to a huge part of the abortion problem is:

Prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I realize that would seem to require taking personal responsibility and accountability for one's personal sexual behavior, so it probably doesn't really stand much of a chance of being widely adopted. :(

Have you been a teenager with hormones?

I loved meeting the girls from the Catholic school.

I'm not advocating promiscuity... But get real.

[acptulsa]

Have you been a teenager with hormones?

I loved meeting the girls from the Catholic school.

I'm not advocating promiscuity... But get real.

Liberals and conservatives have two things in common. They'd both love to create a perfect world, and neither ever will.

[Ozwest]

Liberals and conservatives have two things in common. They'd both love to create a perfect world, and neither ever will.

Reality bites!

[Truth Warrior]

Have you been a teenager with hormones?
Yes!
I loved meeting the girls from the Catholic school.
Me too.
I'm not advocating promiscuity... But get real.
I believe that I am real. And you are providing a very good argument in support for my position on sex and children. They're not responsible enough to have sex lives. Thanks!
:)

[Ozwest]

Truth Warrior.

Teenagers are never responsible enough to have sex lives.

Teenagers are not responsible enough. Period.

But , Teenagers will always test the waters, and make mistakes.

It's a part of growing up.

Why would you not cherish that?

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior.

Teenagers are never responsible enough to have sex lives.

Teenagers are not responsible enough. Period.

But , Teenagers will always test the waters, and make mistakes.

It's a part of growing up.

Why would you not cherish that?
Because way too often it results in unwanted pregnancies. Seems pretty consistent and simple to me. BTW, I'm the father of one, and a stepfather of two now grownup adults. :)

[Ozwest]

Because way too often it results in unwanted pregnancies. Seems pretty consistent and simple to me. BTW, I'm the father of one, and a stepfather of two now grownup adults. :)

Look at marketing.

Selfishness.

[Ozwest]

Because way too often it results in unwanted pregnancies. Seems pretty consistent and simple to me. BTW, I'm the father of one, and a stepfather of two now grownup adults. :)
Respectful.

[SicSemper]

I wasn't trying to start the never-ending debate of how to resolve teen pregnancy or where life begins. Rather, I wanted to stress the danger of infringing on one's rights by claiming that they aren't completely human. I also wanted to challenge the notion that scientific opinion is not always truth.

In the end we need to consider how we define what gets the right to life. We have agreed that every man has rights to life, liberty, and property. We have created government to protect our rights because we can't always protect them ourselves. If there is any chance that something is human then its rights must be protected. We can't be arbiters of who is human and who is not - it is utterly opposite of the rights we have established.

[Truth Warrior]

Look at marketing.

Selfishness.
Apparently, any old excuse will do.

[Truth Warrior]

Respectful.
Thanks!

[Ozwest]

I wasn't trying to start the never-ending debate of how to resolve teen pregnancy or where life begins. Rather, I wanted to stress the danger of infringing on one's rights by claiming that they aren't completely human. I also wanted to challenge the notion that scientific opinion is not always truth.

In the end we need to consider how we define what gets the right to life. We have agreed that every man has rights to life, liberty, and property. We have created government to protect our rights because we can't always protect them ourselves. If there is any chance that something is human then its rights must be protected. We can't be arbiters of who is human and who is not - it is utterly opposite of the rights we have established.Sounds nice, but... you will never be able to approach this subject objectively.

Thank goodness.

It's what makes us human.

[Truth Warrior]

I wasn't trying to start the never-ending debate of how to resolve teen pregnancy or where life begins. Rather, I wanted to stress the danger of infringing on one's rights by claiming that they aren't completely human. I also wanted to challenge the notion that scientific opinion is not always truth.

In the end we need to consider how we define what gets the right to life. We have agreed that every man has rights to life, liberty, and property. We have created government to protect our rights because we can't always protect them ourselves. If there is any chance that something is human then its rights must be protected. We can't be arbiters of who is human and who is not - it is utterly opposite of the rights we have established. Without unwanted pregnancies, the abortion issue pretty much becomes a non-issue and moot, doesn't it? :)

[SicSemper]

Without unwanted pregnancies, the abortion issue pretty much becomes a non-issue and moot, doesn't it? :)

The purpose of government to protect my freedom to do what I want and the freedom of others to do what they want. Unwanted pregnancy is the result of negligence of producers of birth control or the parents. They should be expected to pay for the damages to another person caused by their negligence. Just because a pregnancy is unwanted does not change whether or not the fetus is human enough for rights.

Right and wrong can be argued all day, and I certainly agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies is a good way to reduce abortion rates. Abortion is a violation of every human's right to life. Just trying to hold people accountable for the damages they inflict on others by negligence does not actually address the issue.

[SicSemper]

Sounds nice, but... you will never be able to approach this subject objectively.

Thank goodness.

It's what makes us human.

I am not saying that I am right in believing that life begins at conception.

That's my point. We can't answer it objectively. Why say that our subjective definitions of when life begins constitute objective truth, that's what we did with slavery and look how wrong we were.

If you go hunting and you see something move in the forest somewhere ahead, do you shoot before you know what it is and that its not just another hunter?

Its an issue of the right to life, its too important for us to bring our subjective ideas into it.

[Ozwest]

I am beginning to revert to my old ways.

The line in the sand needs to be drawn.

Some issues are not so cut and dry.

Sometimes, a Community is needed.

[Ozwest]

I am not saying that I am right in believing that life begins at conception.

That's my point. We can't answer it objectively. Why say that our subjective definitions of when life begins constitute objective truth, that's what we did with slavery and look how wrong we were.

If you go hunting and you see something move in the forest somewhere ahead, do you shoot before you know what it is and that its not just another hunter?

Its an issue of the right to life, its too important for us to bring our subjective ideas into it.
ENOUGH!

This endless debate about conception is MUTE.

I have not met women who have dis-regard for life.

Have you?

[Truth Warrior]

The purpose of government to protect my freedom to do what I want and the freedom of others to do what they want. Unwanted pregnancy is the result of negligence of producers of birth control or the parents. They should be expected to pay for the damages to another person caused by their negligence. Just because a pregnancy is unwanted does not change whether or not the fetus is human enough for rights.

Right and wrong can be argued all day, and I certainly agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies is a good way to reduce abortion rates. Abortion is a violation of every human's right to life. Just trying to hold people accountable for the damages they inflict on others by negligence does not actually address the issue.
How's the government doing with it's purpose?

Where does the individual person's responsibility and accountability for their own behavior enter in? That's one of the main differences between children and grownups, BTW.

No pregnancy, no fetus.

People holding themselves accountable in this area and in many others solves many other apparently intractable problems. Turning to government for solutions usually just increases the number of problems for everyone.

Thanks! :)

[SicSemper]

ENOUGH!

This endless debate about conception is MUTE.

I have not met women who have dis-regard for life.

Have you?

I am not arguing that life begins at conception.

I am trying to say that we could be wrong. Just because we feel that we don't have a dis-regard for life does not mean that we don't in reality disregard life. So I say lets draw the lines as broad as possible and not have to face the fact that we killed someone.

Please explain why we should forgo the possibility that a fetus has a right to life.

[Ozwest]

I am not arguing that life begins at conception.

I am trying to say that we could be wrong. Just because we feel that we don't have a dis-regard for life does not mean that we don't in reality disregard life. So I say lets draw the lines as broad as possible and not have to face the fact that we killed someone.

Please explain why we should forgo the possibility that a fetus has a right to life.

Considering that numerous elections are decided, primarily, due to this continuous un-informed verbatum of pseudo science - speaking tongues, over-inflated diatribe, based on political self posturing maggots manipulating a gullible electorate... Yes this subject has seen it's day.

The rest of the World understands the complexities and solutions to this dilemma.

I suggest you catch up and move on.

[nate895]

You can exercise your rights so long as they don't conflict with another's rights. Killing a child interferes with its rights.

[Ozwest]

You can exercise your rights so long as they don't conflict with another's rights. Killing a child interferes with its rights.
Ugghhh! How fricking self righteous.

And emotive...

You Yanks are really sucked in. Aren't you?

P.S. I lived in America for 17 years.

[Ozwest]

I am not convinced that women are " killing children".

Perhaps some of us " blokes " should direct our attention elsewhere...

[TurtleBurger]

Second, under current law we have grotesque power over the fetus. Hypothetically speaking, a pregnant mother could legally opt to have in utero surgery on her fetus to physically harm it and then carry it to term, profoundly affecting the new child for its entire life. The actions of the mother when the fetus had no legal rights, removing its limbs, for example, have consequences that last into the time when the child does have legal rights. Ending the fetus' life has an even more profound effect on its future life by eliminating it entirely. This is very worrisome philosophically and ethically. Fortunately no woman has actually mutilated her fetus in this fashion, but our society has no qualms about regularly terminating pregnancies.



That's really an amazing argument. I can't believe I never heard it before. I'm sure most people who believe that a fetus is part of the woman's body and can be destroyed at will would be quite uncomfortable with giving her the right to amputate random limbs just for giggles. But if it is just part of her body, couldn't she remove as much or as little of it as she wanted?

[Fox McCloud]

You can exercise your rights so long as they don't conflict with another's rights. Killing a child interferes with its rights.

agreed 100%....really, I'm not sure why abortion is even a debate amongst Libertarian circles...you're harming another individual....so why do so many still embrace it?

[LibertyRevolution]

Life begins at conception, but you are a not an individual, a person, and do not have any rights until you are born.

Why is this so hard for some people understand…FALLOW THE PROPERTY.

Until a child is born, the fetus is a part of the mothers body, the mother is the original owner of her body (the property), thus the fetus growing in her body belongs to her.
The property owner can do as they want with their own property, thus the mother has a right to chose whether or not to let it continue to live.
Now if you kill a mother and her child, then yes, you are accountable for 2 deaths, because you were not the owner of either property.
If a doctor harms or kills a fetus by accident, he is not the property owner, and the mother has the right to sue him for the damage.

Yup, that is still how I feel.

[SicSemper]

Yup, that is still how I feel.

Its a convincing argument.

Please explain why one would be accountable for two deaths if you kill the mother while she is pregnant.

[howmanysheepcanyouherd]

people who are obsessed with fetuses in strangers bodies are creepy.

can't you do something productive like volunteer to spend time with at risk youth, or adopt starving children who are here?

i was aborted in a past life...it doesn't hurt.

[Truth Warrior]

Scott Peterson was convicted on TWO criminal counts, for murdering his pregnant wife AND the unborn child. There are lots of other similar cases, similarly decided.