ABORTION

[JOE BIALEK]

On this 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

[Horace]

Yes, but why should it be a crime?

It's just not good enought to say that it WILL develop into a person. Why do you give the foetus/zygote the same rights as a person BEFORE it develops into a person?

You are a person now but you WILL be dead in a certain number of years in the natural course of things. Does that mean that your rights today should be determined as if you are dead already?

I thought not.

And I think that you had better read your consitution again.

[Peanut]

Horace, that's a stupid analogy. Death is irreversible, life begins (at some point - i dont want to debate that) and continues, a "fetus" grows into a human being(something with LIFE) and stay something with life, and then it dies. DEAD PEOPLE, do not, go back to living people! Very STUPID analogy.

[Horace]

Perhaps it just appears to be a stupid analogy because I have not expressed myself clearly enough.

I was trying to point out that Joe appeared to be assessing a foetus's rights based on what it was going to be rather than what it was. I was hoping to illustrate this by pointing out that if we assessed his rights in the same way he might end up with no rights.

The fact that death is irriversable is not to the point.

The question is: why does Joe assess the rights of a foetus based on what it will become rather than what it is?

I acknowledge that a foetus is "something with life" but so is a cow. And a cow is a far more sentient being than a foetus.

[Peanut2]

(something is wrong i cant log in, properly, but i am the original peanut)Then i apologize, but it's still is a valid thing to say that because it will be alive, it should have the rights before hand. The fetus will be alive, unescapable, just as a seed turns into a plant, it has to be nurtured to that point as well as protected. Just a s child starts off as a fetus it has to be nurtured and cared for until it becomes, by a twisted definition, human. In order to reach this state it must be protected therefore granted the rights it will have. Dead people, have no other place to go after they die. If you die, that's it, start singing to the angels, cuz no one down here can hear you. A fetus, will become life and from that point on, as so much MORE potential to become so much else.

[Horace]

I think that what you are doing is referred to by philosophers as begging the question.

Peanut wrote:

"In order to reach this state it must be protected therefore granted the rights it will have".

Just because a foetus requires protection to become a baby does not mean that it should be provided with that protection. You have assumed the correctness of your conclusion as part of your argument.

And I think you still miss the point about being dead. I was merely saying that death is a future state for us (just as being a baby is a future state for a zygote) and that we would not agree to our rights being determined on the basis of such a future state. We want our rights to be determined based on what we are. Not what we will be.

That's where we get back to "potential" people and the arguments about just exactly what constitutes a potential person and what rights they should have. I do not think that there can be an easy answer to that question.

[Peanut]

Horace you said, :"Just because a foetus requires protection to become a baby does not mean that it should be provided with that protection." So, if a key witness in a murder trial demanded protection, we should "CONISDER" giving it to her or him? No, we give it, immediately. I think you miss the point about the dead. Death may be our future state, but it is our FINAL state( i will leave theological arguments outta this) fetus to human(I HATE SAYING THAT, I WANNA GO ON THE RECORD, HAHA) is one of many states in a human life. Of course this is not an easy question to answer, if everyone jsut followed my opinion, IT WOULD BE, lol!!! I HAVE the biggest ego in the world, btw!

[Horace]

Honestly Peanut that is just wrong!

Your witness analogy makes no sense.

Again you beg the question.

I am asking: what is the value of the thing that you are asking me to protect? You are side-stepping the question and are assuming that the thing in question is valuable.

Yes, we all think witnesses in murder trials should be protected. So what? There are plenty of things out there that we don't think should be protected.

[Peanut]

Horace, you said there were plenty of thigns that dont deserve protection, then list them. What am i asking you to protect? I guess i'm asking for the fetus' natural changes and state of being. Or the progression of steps it will take. Fetus(grrrrrr) to human, that should be protected, cared after until it gets to that be a human(again, more grrrrrrr) and then protected by laws, as all humans are, that are fair and just and when that human dies, it should be given the respect it deserves, not to be desecrated. I hope that answers your question.

[Horace]

Sand flies
Mosquitoes
Fungal infections
Religion (and other wooly thinking)
Saddam Hussien
Oprah
And I could go on.

And why do you write: "What am i asking you to protect"?

I asked: "what is the value of the thing that you are asking me to protect"?

A very different question.

[Peanut]

The value of the thing i am asking you to protect. I guess my precvious answer answers this question. I'm asking that the progression that the fetus would naturally take be protected and not interupted. That this progression til when it becomes legally human (dont have to say how much i HATE saying that) is protected and then protected afterwards by the laws of the country it lives in and then the laws that protect it's body from being direspected.

[diane125]

Just because a foetus requires protection to become a baby does not mean that it should be provided with that protection. You have assumed the correctness of your conclusion as part of your argument.

Horace, I think you're making false assumptions. For one thing, you use the terms fetus and baby as if they are completely different organisms. A fetus is a stage of development, such as infant, toddler, adolescent and adult, etc. But it is already a "baby" just as infants and toddlers are also "babies" and should, therefore, be protected.

The term "fetus" is not even exclusive to humans. Fetus is a term used to describe a stage of development in many, if not all, animals. Therefore, the difference between a cow and a "human" fetus is just that, a cow is a cow is a cow, but a "human" deserves greater protections.

You are making the assumption that a "human" fetus will one day be a human but is not already. That's just not the case. A human fetus has its entire DNA structure from day one of conception and its genetic map is already determined and will control its own growth and development from that moment on. The mother's body is a mere host that provides protection and nourishment to the baby until it is born just as the mother's care would after it is born.

[Horace]

I do not believe that I have ever said that the foetus is not human. Of course it is human. What else would it be? Vulcan?

All I have said is that it strikes me as odd that you people insist on calling it a baby even at the point when it is a mere clump of cells.

We all know that it will grow into a baby.

It is obviously not a "baby" in the usual sense of the word when it consists of two cells stuck together.

I wont be dressing it in a bonnet and wheeling it down the street to the playground at that point. Nor, I hope, will you.

I suspect that the use of the word is an attempt (conscious or unconscious) to bolster your anti-abortion position. It is mere semantics. It is an emotive appeal which has no place in rational discussion.

That is all I am saying.

Perhaps now we can return to matters of actual importance.

[diane125]

Your argument is actually amusing. You claim that we use the term "baby" in an effort to bolster our anti-abortion position, as if it is "strange" to use that term before the baby is born. When in reality it is much more common to call it a baby rather than a fetus.

How many women do you know say that they are pregnant with a "fetus" or "embryo?" Does the doctor ask an expectant couple if they want to hear their fetus' heartbeat or does the ultrasound tech ask if they want a picture of their embryo? I've never heard a pregnant woman squeal, "Oh, I just felt my fetus kick!"

We all know that the insistance of pro-choicers to use strictly scientific terms to describe preborn human beings (with heartbeats as of 4 weeks and fully formed as of 10-12 weeks) is your attempt at sanitizing the truth that abortion kills babies.

[Horace]

Look at my beautiful baby.