Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Syne]

Perhaps this analogy will help you understand:

"The burning baby example"

Assume there is a building filled with millions of babies and millions of zygotes/embryos/fetuses all equally packed in easy to carry blankets etc. such that each one is equally accessible to be saved from any potential fire. Lets say you enter the building and discover that there is a raging fire that will consume the building in a matter of minutes and kill all the babies and zytgotes/embryos/fetuses. You determine that you have only enough time to save as many lives as you can with one trip outside. Which do you choose to save, the zygotes/embryos/fetuses or the babies? I would choose to save the babies, why, because the probability of continued life if I save zygotes is 30 percent. So if I save a baby that is alive, I am saving a child that has a high likelihood of living and if I save a zygote I am saving a life with a low chance of living.

Most people would probably say babies, but then that is exactly what pro-lifers are trying to save. It is not like fetuses stay fetuses forever, as the end product is a baby. The false dilemma of choosing between the two merely pits the potential for a viable baby against an actual baby, which does not seem to be a real world choice that ever need be made. Saving one results in saving the other.

Now lets complete the analogy:
The building is equal to the earth -- the babies are equal to babies, children and adults -- the zygotes, embryos, and fetuses remain what they are --your trip into the building is equal to your years of life on earth and the fire is equal to all causes of death on earth.

Now the earth is filled with 7 billion zygotes, embryos and fetuses along with babies, children and adults that are dying from all known causes. They will die if you don't in your lifetime save them for some period of time. You have a choice, you can save as many as possible from any of the groups. Any you don't save will die. So which do you save? I save the babies because the zygotes have only a 30 percent chance (due to natural abortion) of life even if saved by me. The embryos have a 85 percent chance of life once natural abortion is factored in, and the fetuses have about a 90/99 percent chance of living just prior to birth. So I do not choose to save any of the unborn, because they are all risky choices. I do however want to save as many of the babies, children and adults as I can because they are already alive. And it doesn't matter if some or sick, because some of the unborn may be sick as well.

Which would you save?

That seems to assume that people are generally in the business of saving lives. Aside from police, firemen, rescue workers, etc., most people will not save a single life over the entire course of their own. So for most people, saving a fetus (as you put it) is the only life they are likely to save at all. You seem to be confused over the fact that fetuses could be saved by legislation but babies could not (other than indirectly through child abuse/neglect laws).

 

[billvon]

@Russell
I'm not sure if I've got your argument right.
Are you saying that if one baby/fetus is brought into the world, despite its mother wanting an abortion, that another must die?

If I have got it right, could you explain your reasoning more fully?

Good luck!

 

[RussellCrawford]

First, thank you so much for reading my information and asking questions. I really appreciate your interest.

@Russell
I'm not sure if I've got your argument right

No, you don't have it right, but don't worry we will fix that.

Are you saying that if one baby/fetus is brought into the world, despite its mother wanting an abortion, that another must die?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the Law of Charity and the Theory of Choice apply.

The Law of Charity states that there are more people dying than can be saved.
The Theory of Choice states that because there are more people dying than can be saved, one must choose whom to save.

What you are saying is that if one fetus is forced to be born a baby must die.
Your statement implies that someone is going to kill a baby if a fetus is forced to be born. That would not be possible in most cases. And in your idea above there is no recognition that both the fetus and the baby are already dying.

The laws and theories that I submit reflect what really is happening. There are 7 billion people dying, that means there are more dying than can be saved. And with so many dying, one must choose whom to save, because he cannot save them all.

So lets look at the real world under the two laws. First there are 7 billion people dying. And there are fetuses dying. And there are people that say," I save life."

Now along comes a pro lifer (lets call him Joepro Lifer) into the midst of the 7 billion dying people and says "I am here to save babies". A woman looks up, holds her baby up and says, "save my baby, please sir." He says, "no thanks, I am going to stand in front of that clinic and stop an abortion." The woman lays her baby down and it dies.

This story illustrates the two laws very well. There are more people dying than can be saved and a pro lifer must make a choice of which life to save. As all pro lifers do, he chooses to attempt to save a fetus and as a result of his choice he allows a baby that is dying to in fact die.

What I am saying on this site is that there are more babies, children and adults dying than can be saved. One must, by scientific law, choose which one to save, either the fetus or the baby. If one chooses to save the fetus a baby will die. If one chooses to save a baby a fetus will die. That is what scientific laws show.

In your post, someone saves a fetus and as a result someone kills a baby. In the real world, both the baby and the fetus are already dying and someone must save one or both or one or both die. The sad part is that if one ever saves a fetus, a baby must die.

The laws also make it clear which life should be saved and that when the choice is between a fetus and a baby, as it always is, only the baby should be saved.

If I have got it right, could you explain your reasoning more fully?

If the story above did not explain things clearly enough look around the site and find my "the burning baby" analogy. It is a good analogy for you to read.

 

[lightgigantic]

First, thank you so much for reading my information and asking questions. I really appreciate your interest.




No, you don't have it right, but don't worry we will fix that.



No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the Law of Charity and the Theory of Choice apply.

The Law of Charity states that there are more people dying than can be saved.
The Theory of Choice states that because there are more people dying than can be saved, one must choose whom to save.

What you are saying is that if one fetus is forced to be born a baby must die.
Your statement implies that someone is going to kill a baby if a fetus is forced to be born. That would not be possible in most cases. And in your idea above there is no recognition that both the fetus and the baby are already dying.

The laws and theories that I submit reflect what really is happening. There are 7 billion people dying, that means there are more dying than can be saved. And with so many dying, one must choose whom to save, because he cannot save them all.

So lets look at the real world under the two laws. First there are 7 billion people dying. And there are fetuses dying. And there are people that say," I save life."

Now along comes a pro lifer (lets call him Joepro Lifer) into the midst of the 7 billion dying people and says "I am here to save babies". A woman looks up, holds her baby up and says, "save my baby, please sir." He says, "no thanks, I am going to stand in front of that clinic and stop an abortion." The woman lays her baby down and it dies.

This story illustrates the two laws very well. There are more people dying than can be saved and a pro lifer must make a choice of which life to save. As all pro lifers do, he chooses to attempt to save a fetus and as a result of his choice he allows a baby that is dying to in fact die.

What I am saying on this site is that there are more babies, children and adults dying than can be saved. One must, by scientific law, choose which one to save, either the fetus or the baby. If one chooses to save the fetus a baby will die. If one chooses to save a baby a fetus will die. That is what scientific laws show.

In your post, someone saves a fetus and as a result someone kills a baby. In the real world, both the baby and the fetus are already dying and someone must save one or both or one or both die. The sad part is that if one ever saves a fetus, a baby must die.

The laws also make it clear which life should be saved and that when the choice is between a fetus and a baby, as it always is, only the baby should be saved.




If the story above did not explain things clearly enough look around the site and find my "the burning baby" analogy. It is a good analogy for you to read.

the problem with this scenario (aside from the degree that one can actually be saved from death in any ultimate fashion anyway ... since it has a spotless track record of 100% since time immemorial) is the that the time and energy people are willing to engage in saving other people or other acts of philanthropy bears no correlation to the number of children they have.

 

[Syne]

Wow, Bells finally addressed the ethical issue of personhood. Good job ElectricFetus.

Here is a human blastocyst.

Should it have the same rights as you? After all, it is 5 days old. 5 days prior to that, a human male sperm penetrated a female egg. Whereupon a new person came into existence.

So is it a person?

Should it have the exact same legal protection as you do and thus, be granted human rights? Because if we are going to talk personhood, then we are going to have to talk it at the moment of conception.

Why do you assume it must be from conception? Seems you may be equating human life with personhood. That is not necessarily true.

And if we are going to apply the personhood argument, women will also have to be investigated for murder each time she miscarries and every single month, her menstruation will need to be investigated to make sure she has not committed murder. This is acceptable for you?

Argument ad absurdum. You have not even made any argument that your assumption of personhood at conception has any ethical weight.

Another example. You and your 2 year old child are involved in a major car pileup and you are badly injured. Help arrives and commence triage, where they assess who gets what emergency care when, and prioritise who goes first. You are mildly injured but your child is even worse off, with severe abdominal injuries. So help arrives and they assess your child and know that your child will die if it does not get immediate care. Then your wife tells the paramedic that she is 9 weeks pregnant. She is not badly injured and only has a broken wrist. Since the 9 week old embryo is a person, it has equal rights to care as your badly injured 2 year old. Who is more of a person to you? Who do you think should be put in that ambulance first? Your wife with the broken wrist because the 9 week old embryo could die by miscarriage because of the accident? Or your 2 year old child who has life threatening abdominal injuries. Granting personhood means you can say sweet fuck all if they leave your 2 year old to die while they try and save the embryo that they have no control over, nor can they really save it.

Triage dictates that the most recognizably severe injury takes precedent, and a broken wrist is not much of a miscarriage risk. So this argument is just plain silly.

You want to talk about millions being murdered? More are miscarried without even the mother's knowledge than anything else, and thus, are being denied their constitutional right to life. So many murders, so little time.

Silly arguments without a shred of actual rationale or genuine attempt to engage the possible personhood issue. Just fallacious appeals to ridicule.

I mean of course they don't hate women. They just don't think women are intelligent or responsible enough to be able to make that decision. That isn't misogynistic, is it.

Well, I do not know about all women, but you sure seem incapable of handling the ethical issues as anything other than fuel for you misandristic arguments.

 

[RussellCrawford]

the problem with this scenario (aside from the degree that one can actually be saved from death in any ultimate fashion anyway ... since it has a spotless track record of 100% since time immemorial) is the that the time and energy people are willing to engage in saving other people or other acts of philanthropy bears no correlation to the number of children they have.

Well neither of your comments really matter, right? Both problems existed before you knew of the laws and the laws were in force then. The status remains the same. Laws are immutable and timeless. These laws have existed from the first human until now. So worrying about either of your comments is a waste of time.

 

[Capracus]

Most people would probably say babies, but then that is exactly what pro-lifers are trying to save. It is not like fetuses stay fetuses forever, as the end product is a baby. The false dilemma of choosing between the two merely pits the potential for a viable baby against an actual baby, which does not seem to be a real world choice that ever need be made. Saving one results in saving the other.

Is there any point after conception that you deem acceptable for termination?

 

[lightgigantic]

On every street corner..

Some 87% of U.S. counties do not have an abortion provider and 35% of women aged 15–44 live in those counties.[32] The proportions are lower in the Northeast (53% and 18%) and the West (74% and 13%). In 2005, nonhospital providers estimated that while more than seven in 10 women traveled less than 50 miles to access abortion services, nearly two in 10 traveled 50–100 miles and almost one in 10 traveled more than 100 miles.​

"every street corner" was rhetorical.

Exaggerate much LG?

You make it seem as if women just nip down for convenient abortions around the corner on a mere whim. The reality is far, vastly far, from your exaggeration.

You make it seem as if travelling 50-100 miles is a problem

*Chortle!*

I want you to show me proof that people are wholesaling abortion that is available anytime for any woman at any stage of her pregnancy.

I vaguely recall some news story that got airplay in australia maybe a year ago about a woman having an extremely late term abortion with no pending health issues aside from some comment from the mother that it looked funny.

In what ways are you suggesting it is sufficiently regulated or guided by restrictions?

It is heavily controlled and sanctioned, to the point where some women needing one for medical reasons - ie to save the life of the mother - are denied the right to have one.

You are talking about the issue as it is represented in several different contexts, since it is also so unregulated where some women can have an abortion at around 24 weeks for any sort of reason.

In some hospitals, even if a woman is miscarrying and is bleeding out or even becoming septic or has an ectopic pregnancy, they will refuse to treat the mother if there is still a foetal heartbeat. Perhaps you can explain how it is not restricted or sanctioned?

and in some hospitals a child can be aborted even if the mother thinks it 'looks funny'

Contrary to what you may believe LG, women are very much aware of what happens and what is going on when they have an abortion. They are also very much aware of what it is they are doing.

if that was so, there would be no need to veil the procedure in political language for the sake of defending the indefensible

Could you please explain what you mean by this statement?

If a lower standard becomes the new standard, then you have just lowered the benchmark

Why is it a crucial requirement for women to be lectured to prevent society from slipping into "the degraded standard becoming the new standard"?

Why is it that this goal can only be achieved by "lecturing" women?

Do you think women do not know or understand what is going on in their own body? Do you think women do not know or understand their decisions?

If they are guided through the entire procedure under the guise of "tissue removal" or to reject "men dominating their wombs" or to "terminate a parasite" or any of the other corruptions of language commonly thrown about on these sorts of discussions, then no.

Do you think women are to blame for dumping society down the slippery slope that you deem has become the new degraded standard of society?

no

Like in the highly moral society where a woman, 14 weeks pregnant, is being kept on life support against her and her family's consent and pumping her full of drugs to keep her alive, because she is pregnant and the family do not even know if the baby even has a functioning brain yet because of all it suffered in the life saving attempts made to keep the mother alive?
Is that a moral society? Or the society that forces a woman to nearly die as she goes septic in a miscarriage because there is still a foetal heartbeat? Is that a moral society? Or is a moral society one that respects the rights of women and allows them to access safe and necessary medical care for all of their needs as required?

until you can actually introduce the notion of personhood to the discussion - ie actually discuss the scenario as it relates to two individuals - you are not actually contributing any substance.

Abstinence is unrealistic and often fails. Society that fail to prepare their children for the eventuality of sex, who fail to educate their children about sex and safe sex, who force their daughters to undergo chastity pledges, fail dismally.

A society that fails to prepare children for household life (since that is what they commonly default to) fails.

I deride abstinence when that is all it is taught.

I would rather my children know and are educated about sex and all the responsibilities of what can happen if you have sex, I would rather they know and understand why if they do have sex, why protection is essential, than to tell my children 'sex is evil and bad outside of marriage unless they want to have a child' and strike absolute fear and terror of sex into them.

If you don't have an effective family unit, you can't teach your children anything ... and that is the space through which society slips at the rate of one generation at a time.

Sex is normal and it is a normal part of life. We would not be here without it.

Sex is as natural as birth.

What I advocate is education and understanding and providing safe environments for people to talk about it and to provide people who are sexually active with contraception and the ability to take responsibility for their actions as they feel is necessary.

Which then leads us to the problem of people seeking unnatural means that infringe on basic moral codes in their course for taking "responsibility" for their sex life

Should the potential for life have more rights than the mother who is alive?

are you talking about the sparkle between two people's eyes or designating something as "life" some period after it is life?

I'll put it this way LG, as I type this, there is a woman in Texas who is being forced to remain alive, against her wishes and that of her family's wishes, on life support, because she was 14 weeks pregnant when she initially died and became brain dead. She is immediately denied any dignity because she was 14 weeks pregnant and she is forced onto life support, because there was a foetal heartbeat. I cannot imagine anything worse. 14 weeks.. There is no chance of viability here. We aren't talking about keeping her on life support for a few weeks. But until May. Five months away. Society and the law in Texas has deemed her only valuable enough as an incubator and her dignity and her very identity and her wishes and that of her family are no longer worthy of consideration. In the meantime, the family do not even know if the child is brain dead like its mother.

and just for the sake of argument, if it so happens that a child is born, what then (from what I understand your statement of "there is no chance of viability" is not a properly sourced one)?
Not to say that I personally agree with this scenario (mainly because the family members are not in favour of waiting it out, and I think any issue that involves life support should be dictated by the family members), but, again, you haven't really introduced personhood (aside from the personhood of the mother) to this discussion

And you complain that women have the right over their body and as you stereotype it, abort in any circumstance or when she chooses? How dare she have rights over her sexual organs and her reproductive organs!

So what are, IYHO, adequate circumstances for a woman to choose to have an abortion?

When my placenta ruptured and as I bled out, literally, I bled out, the only thing that mattered to me was the rights of my son, so much so that I begged the doctor to let me go, to let me die, to save my son as I went into shock and then lost consciousness. So I'd suggest you be careful about what you think I feel for the rights of the "child".

This sort of thinking is conspicuous by its absence when you discuss this topic.

I would never ever force my personal standard on anyone else.

16000 + posts on sciforums dictate otherwise
:shrug:

Women should decide for themselves.

under any sort of circumstances?

Well we could advocate not having sex until you want to have a child, but most people are normal and actually enjoy sex LG.

Then I guess the problem is that sex enjoyment is not accompanied by a desire/capacity for responsible parenthood or performance of family duties ... which then defaults one to treating the symptoms of a problem while sustaining its cause.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Well neither of your comments really matter, right? Both problems existed before you knew of the laws and the laws were in force then. The status remains the same. Laws are immutable and timeless. These laws have existed from the first human until now. So worrying about either of your comments is a waste of time.

what laws are you talking about?

There are no laws that prohibit performing philanthropy if you have many children.
There are no laws that prohibit performing philanthropy if you have no children.

 

[Logic101]

I am totally against abortion. In the case of rape I propose the child be given away.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Most people would probably say babies, but then that is exactly what pro-lifers are trying to save.

Most people save themselves, their children, their parents, their friends and their animals and their neighbors. Pro lifers don't save life, they kill one life to force the other to be born. They ignore the lives that most people save.

It is not like fetuses stay fetuses forever, as the end product is a baby.

And once a fetus becomes a baby, it is no longer on the list of lives that pro lifers attempt to save.

The false dilemma of choosing between the two merely pits the potential for a viable baby against an actual baby,

As explained before there is no false dilemma. I explained before how there is nothing false in the dilemma. And I asked you to explain how the dilemma could be false. You did not answer. So you have conceded that there is no false dilemma.

No baby is viable until it is born. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no viable fetus. You may "guess" it is viable or claim it is potentially viable, but it is not viable.

which does not seem to be a real world choice that ever need be made. Saving one results in saving the other.

Any choice to save a fetus is a choice to let a born baby die. So saving one kills the other according to scientific law. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

That seems to assume that people are generally in the business of saving lives.

No, it assumes that people will not murder an innocent baby to save a fetus. They don't have to save life, they just have to refrain from killing life. Pro lifers kill born life to save fetuses, normal people don't.

Aside from police, firemen, rescue workers, etc., most people will not save a single life over the entire course of their own.

People save their own lives, the lives of their family and the lives of friends and others, without even trying. They simply refuse to kill born life to save fetuses.

So for most people, saving a fetus (as you put it) is the only life they are likely to save at all.

Saving a fetus does not save life, it kills a born life in an effort to save a fetus. A person has a choice, they may choose to save a born baby or they can let the born baby die and attempt to save a fetus. That is what scientific laws show.

You seem to be confused over the fact that fetuses could be saved by legislation but babies could not (other than indirectly through child abuse/neglect laws).

No life is saved by pro life legislation. You may claim a fetus on occasion will be saved, though most die, but the fact is that even an attempt to save a fetus will end with the death of an innocent born baby. That is what scientific laws prove. Unless you can prove otherwise.

And don't claim that someone is sneaking up and killing babies each time someone attempts to save a fetus. You already know what I mean. You have a choice, you can save an innocent baby or you can let it die and save a fetus instead. There is no bogie man killing babies. Don't even try that again.

 

[RussellCrawford]

what laws are you talking about?

There are no laws that prohibit performing philanthropy if you have many children.
There are no laws that prohibit performing philanthropy if you have no children.

You know what laws I am talking about. So don't be coy.

Pro lifers have a choice, they may choose to save innocent born babies or they may choose to let them die and save a fetus instead.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I am totally against abortion. In the case of rape I propose the child be given away.

Why?

 

[RussellCrawford]

Why?

What about if the baby was conceived with genetically modified sperm or eggs?

No one is really pro life until they have been raped or had IVF with genetically altered sperm and still do not want an abortion.

You do know that the Nazis ( http://books.google.com/books?id=nW...EwADgU#v=onepage&q=Nazi laws abortion&f=false ) raped women and experimented with their eggs. They were trying to prove "life at conception".

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/..._conservatives_anti_abortion_claims_that.html

 

[Syne]

Most people save themselves, their children, their parents, their friends and their animals and their neighbors. Pro lifers don't save life, they kill one life to force the other to be born. They ignore the lives that most people save.

You must be using some odd definition for the word "save".

 

[Syne]

Is there any point after conception that you deem acceptable for termination?

Earlier than 8 weeks (first brain waves). At brain death, we consider the human to no longer have a right to life (and can be terminated), so prior to brain waves it would at least be consistent to grant no right to life.

 

[lightgigantic]

You know what laws I am talking about. So don't be coy.

Pro lifers have a choice, they may choose to save innocent born babies or they may choose to let them die and save a fetus instead.

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about.



:shrug:

 

[Syne]

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about.



:shrug:

Agreed.

 

[Bells]

Earlier than 8 weeks (first brain waves). At brain death, we consider the human to no longer have a right to life (and can be terminated), so prior to brain waves it would at least be consistent to grant no right to life.

So before most women realise or know they are even pregnant...

Well when you have a child, you can make that decision for yourself.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Is there any point after conception that you deem acceptable for termination?

Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct genotype one cannot tell if the fetus is alive or human. So until you can prove for certain that there is human life it would be fine to abort. That point is at birth. No one should be able to kill a baby.

The main reason that late term abortion is OK is because forcing the birth of a fetus causes the death of a baby.