Abortion

[technomage]

Does an unborn child have a right not to be killed?

As the laws (statutory and case law) stand currently--no.

[Individualist]

The irony that a self-identified "libertarian" does not extend the fundamental liberty of life to the unborn is not lost on me.

J

Libertarianism does not teach that children have all the rights that adults have. No, I don't believe the unborn have the a right to life, but I'm willing to look into the matter. Why should all humans have the same rights?

[dzstroke015]

Sparko, I'm sorry to have put you off, but I missed the kick-off, replying to cberman.

I was thinking of some situation where both the mother and child were in danger, say of being struck by a car, or hanging off a cliff or something, and you only had time to save one of them. Which would the mother want you to save? her or her child?

the situation that you described where the child was holding a gun to her mother really isn't applicable. A fetus isn't consiously trying to kill his/her mother. s/he is innocent.

I thought I might be adding something to the discussion, but you may strike my questions.

I'm a man, so I can't speak for women (although with gender equality, my opinion should be the same as a woman's ). I know we'd like to think a mother would give her life for a child, but we'd also like to think a mother wouldn't kill her unborn child. Although, given the differences in social perception, we can't assume a mother views her unborn child as she views her one year old child. Most women realize in advance that they would feel doubt and guilt for letting a one year old die to save their own life, but many women don't know until after they abort a child that doubt and guilt for taking an innocent life will haunt them the rest of their lives. Sadly, abortion is a cause of suicide, and we lose both lives.

Here's an example of a woman who (hours before delivery) decided to risk her unborn child's life (90% chance the child would die), even though her life was not in imminent danger:
http://www.theinterim.com/issues/mother-vs-child/
It's an old story, but it's come under recent scrutiny.

Personally, I can't say there is a right decision when choosing between two lives. I've said I'd save my wife over a child, but I've decided that without my wife's input...

[Raphael]

Sparko, I'm sorry to have put you off, but I missed the kick-off, replying to cberman.

I hope you don't mind me cutting in here.

I'm a man, so I can't speak for women (although with gender equality, my opinion should be the same as a woman's ). I know we'd like to think a mother would give her life for a child, but we'd also like to think a mother wouldn't kill her unborn child.

This comes to education ... more in a bit.

Although, given the differences in social perception, we can't assume a mother views her unborn child as she views her one year old child.

education ...

Most women realize in advance that they would feel doubt and guilt for letting a one year old die to save their own life, but many women don't know until after they abort a child that doubt and guilt for taking an innocent life will haunt them the rest of their lives.

... as I said, education.
Pro-abortionists (Planned Parenthood et al.) have carefully run a campaign over the decades (in Planned Parenthood's case ever since Sanger started the organisation) teaching people that the unborn are not really human. They teach that at best the unborn may become human after they are born, at worst, an inconvenience to be disposed of. (note: they prefer personhood now rather than human as the designation "human" causes a few problems with their argument)

My wife recently had a miscarriage (would have been our third child), and it shattered us as much as if it had been one of our two girls, and this was very early on in the pregnancy. Why? Because we considered that to be our baby, another little human and very much a part of our family from the day it was conceived. It was life, it was human, and it was ours.

However the pro-abortionists would have no trouble as dismissing it as an inconvenience (note the miscarriage was in the first trimester). We need to get out there and educate people that this is not the case. Ultrasound in an incredible asset with this.

Most people with a one year old would hardly deny that the baby is a human, and a person (except Peter Singer and his ilk). Ultrasound is affording the same mental connection as you cannot look at a scan and deny that is a little human, and that is alive (which is why so many abortion providers object to the Pregnancy Crisis centres offering free ultrasound scans).

Sadly, abortion is a cause of suicide, and we lose both lives.

which is sad in itself, and all the more reason for women who have had abortion to receive couselling

Here's an example of a woman who (hours before delivery) decided to risk her unborn child's life (90% chance the child would die), even though her life was not in imminent danger:
http://www.theinterim.com/issues/mother-vs-child/
It's an old story, but it's come under recent scrutiny.

In my opinion the state acted rightly. The article highlights an important discrepancy in the Law. In many countries, if someone kills an unborn baby (e.g. a blow to the womb, shooting/stabbing the mother in the womb, killing the mother etc.) it is, rightly, countered as murder (i.e. the wrongful taking of a human life).

However when it comes to the mother deciding that she wants to get rid of the baby, suddenly she's allowed to do whatever she wants.

Personally, I can't say there is a right decision when choosing between two lives. I've said I'd save my wife over a child, but I've decided that without my wife's input...

if I'm put in the terrible situation of being only able to save the life of my wife, or that of one of my daughters, I would save my daughter and if my wife was in my place she would do the same. Both my wife and I would willingly sacrifice ourselves for the lives of our daughters.

However, in the scenario you proposed (child with a gun on the mother threatening to shoot her) is completely different that is hardly an innocent action and I would do my utmost to prevent my wife getting shot.

[technomage]

Pro-abortionists (Planned Parenthood et al.) have carefully run a campaign over the decades (in Planned Parenthood's case ever since Sanger started the organisation) teaching people that the unborn are not really human.

Wait--stop right there, Raphael. Are you aware that "A fetus is not human/a person" was the default legal (and, frequently, theological, even in Christian circles) opinion for centuries before Roe v. Wade, or before Sanger was even born?

[Raphael]

Wait--stop right there, Raphael. Are you aware that "A fetus is not human/a person" was the default legal (and, frequently, theological, even in Christian circles) opinion for centuries before Roe v. Wade, or before Sanger was even born?

Can you cite some support for that? (I am genuinely interested)
But even if some Christian theologians did teach that, it would be a position I strongly disagree with.
What it does mean is that the idea that the unborn are not human is even more ingrained.

(Note: Roe v. Wade is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. It's American law, not international law, and this is something that I believe needs to be tackled at an international level)

[technomage]

Can you cite some support for that? (I am genuinely interested)

The most extensive and concise treatment I have seen is from the Roe v. Wade decision (Cite). The ruling includes a brief discussion, and one of the footnotes (Footnote 22) references Augustine and Aquinas, and the views of Canon law.

The reason for this view is based, in part, on Aristotle, and in part on ancient and medieval speculation of when the soul entered the fetus.

But even if some Christian theologians did teach that, it would be a position I strongly disagree with.

As do I.

(Note: Roe v. Wade is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

R. v. W. also briefly discusses English common law, and demonstrates that the same legal and theological underpinning affected the laws there.

[Sparko]

seems pretty sad that our definition of who a person is depends on where they are located. Wrap a baby in a womb and magically he isn't a person any more.

[technomage]

seems pretty sad that our definition of who a person is depends on where they are located. Wrap a baby in a womb and magically he isn't a person any more.

Sparko, disparaging those who disagree with us is not going to help. We need to stop spewing slogans and derision at those who disagree--all it does is increase their resolve that they are right and we're being irrational.

[Individualist]

Libertarianism does not teach that children have all the rights that adults have. Why should all humans have the same rights?

*bump*

[dzstroke015]

Wait--stop right there, Raphael. Are you aware that "A fetus is not human/a person" was the default legal (and, frequently, theological, even in Christian circles) opinion for centuries before Roe v. Wade, or before Sanger was even born?

And yet, it was illegal in most states before Roe v Wade...

You use the leading word "fetus", but that term implies an unborn child at any stage. The term was not used in common law. At the time of U.S. independence, that portion of common law was stated as:

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."

You cite Aristotle, but Aristotle also believed the earth was the center of the universe. His view of the placement of the earth was based on his science, but his view of when life begins was based on his philosophy. He had major errors in his science. Why do you cite his philosophy as authoritative?

Specifically, our understanding of when life begins in the womb has increased, but our allowance of abortion has gone the other way, against science.

[Raphael]

just a note: I'm pretty busy today, and away all day tomorrow, so I'll only be able to read over your sources on Thursday Technomage.

[Sparko]

Sparko, disparaging those who disagree with us is not going to help. We need to stop spewing slogans and derision at those who disagree--all it does is increase their resolve that they are right and we're being irrational.

Button it Witchie Boy!

:justin2:

[technomage]

And yet, it was illegal in most states before Roe v Wade...

And yet, such illegality was quite recent in Christian culture--the earliest American anti-abortion law was in Connecticut (Conn.Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16 (1821))

You use the leading word "fetus", but that term implies an unborn child at any stage. The term was not used in common law.

Number one, the term "fetus" is the correct biological term.

At the time of U.S. independence, that portion of common law was stated as:

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."

If you will do a bit of research, you will discover that the quote you make above is not statute law, nor is it case law: it is a statement of personal opinion made by Justice Wilson in a lecture.

Furthermore, if you will actually read the Roe v. Wade decision, you will note that Justice Burger notes this opinion--and notes that it does not protect the fetus from the moment of conception. The phrase "first able to stir in the womb" is referred to in RvW as "quickening," and is referenced and discussed in quite a bit of detail in the RvW decision.

You cite Aristotle

Excuse me--I do not cite Aristotle. I cite Augustus and Aquinas--they cite Aristotle.

Specifically, our understanding of when life begins in the womb has increased, but our allowance of abortion has gone the other way, against science.

DZ, are you aware that I am opposed to abortion?

[dzstroke015]

And yet, such illegality was quite recent in Christian culture--the earliest American anti-abortion law was in Connecticut (Conn.Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16 (1821))

So, you're defending the new law based on old opinions and philosopy. If I understand your argument, the in between stuff doesn't count. And you seem to be of the opinion that old philosophy trumps new science.

Number one, the term "fetus" is the correct biological term.

I understand that, but you missed my point. You know as well as I do that your initial comment refers to philosopies about when life begins (or when the soul enters a child, etc.). Refering to the child as a fetus implies, usually intentionally, that an unborn child's status as a living being does not begin until he exits the birth canal (or uterus, in the case of C-section).

If you will do a bit of research, you will discover that the quote you make above is not statute law, nor is it case law: it is a statement of personal opinion made by Justice Wilson in a lecture.

I did my research, and I know that. I was following your initial comment which was specifically focused on legal opinion. Regardless, Justice Wilson's comment was an opinion interpretting current law. To get technical, that's what the judges did when they decided Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade isn't a law, it's an opinion, as you note below.

Furthermore, if you will actually read the Roe v. Wade decision, you will note that Justice Burger notes this opinion--and notes that it does not protect the fetus from the moment of conception. The phrase "first able to stir in the womb" is referred to in RvW as "quickening," and is referenced and discussed in quite a bit of detail in the RvW decision.

And here Justice Berger refered to old religious philosophies to decide when life begins, rather than considering science. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? Where's the separation of church and state?

Excuse me--I do not cite Aristotle. I cite Augustus and Aquinas--they cite Aristotle.

Pardon. My bad.

DZ, are you aware that I am opposed to abortion?

I am not aware of that, and I would not have guessed from your posts I've read so far. I'm new.