If you considered a fetus a child, would you still be pro-choice?

[AreaCode7O7]

Essence of the relevant part of the conversation:

Me: If you took a Darwinian basis for morality, killing one's own progeny could be considered the ultimate bottom line of morality, consistent across all cultures and history, yet it is not.
Friend: It would be, but people get around it by arguing that a fetus is not a child
Me: Not all. Some are willing to label it a child but still consider it the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy

The question from the conversation is whether cross-cultures the taboo on killing what is perceived as a child is absolute. Help us determine the accuracy of this in the western world.

Oh, and I'm irrelevant to the poll.

[edit] Removed the second poll, too confusing.

 

[Muse]

Irrelevant? Wrong choice of word.

"Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." - William Blake

 

[JD50]

pro-abortion != pro-choice

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: JD50
pro-abortion != pro-choice

Wording fixed, thanks.

 

[RichardE]

Doesn't matter if a fetus is considered a child, it is still the womens choice to terminate or not.

 

[MustISO]

IMO it's always the woman's choice.

 

[brencat]

I think you're trying to play too cute with nuance here. And your poll doesn't give any flexibility to pro-lifers like me so I can't even vote appropriately.

My personal view is that life begins at conception. This is undisputed scientific fact, religion notwithstanding. I am pro-life and am against abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk. In these cases, the patient and family must have the freedom to decide.

What I personally would like to see is less elective abortion for reasons like 'forgot to use protection' or 'my lifestyle/career will suffer' or whatever other selfish reason, and I certainly don't want taxpayer funded abortion for poor people on demand. However, the best way is through better education, not outlawing it like the extremists want.

Despite the bad rap the Catholic churches get for teaching abstinence, their efforts have helped to dramatically reduce VD/AIDS in certain areas of Africa, where going to the local drug store or even affording a box of condoms is largely out of the reach of many impoverished people.

 

[Acanthus]

last option, even if it is a child, im still pro-choice.

 

[Farang]

I think you bring up an interesting point with the historical perspective, but I wonder how accurate it is. Were there not methods of abortion centuries ago? I'm not sure, but wouldn't be surprised if there were. With that said, I don't like the wording of your question but my answer would be yes, I consider a fetus to be a conceived human being (but it is a fetus, not a child). I am completely against abortion, I believe it is wrong.

However I don't blame others for making a different interpretation. It is a difficult distinction to make and I can't say I am right or others are wrong. For that reason I believe the law as it stands is as close as we can come to an agreement in America. I am pro-choice.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: brencat
I think you're trying to play too cute with nuance here. And your poll doesn't give any flexibility to pro-lifers like me so I can't even vote appropriately.

My personal view is that life begins at conception. This is undisputed scientific fact, religion notwithstanding. I am pro-life and am against abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk. In these cases, the patient and family must have the freedom to decide.

What I personally would like to see is less elective abortion for reasons like 'forgot to use protection' or 'my lifestyle/career will suffer' or whatever other selfish reason, and I certainly don't want taxpayer funded abortion for poor people on demand. However, the best way is through better education, not outlawing it like the extremists want.

Despite the bad rap the Catholic churches get for teaching abstinence, their efforts have helped to dramatically reduce VD/AIDS in certain areas of Africa, where going to the local drug store or even affording a box of condoms is largely out of the reach of many impoverished people.

Pro-lifers don't impact the actual question intended to be resolved by the poll, hence the irrelevant option. That's what I selected as well. It's not actually a position/political/morality thread, it's an isolated sociological question for a pro-choice audience, applied to an isolated philosophical question between my friend and I.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Farang
I think you bring up an interesting point with the historical perspective, but I wonder how accurate it is. Were there not methods of abortion centuries ago? I'm not sure, but wouldn't be surprised if there were. With that said, I don't like the wording of your question but my answer would be yes, I consider a fetus to be a conceived human being (but it is a fetus, not a child). I am completely against abortion, I believe it is wrong.

However I don't blame others for making a different interpretation. It is a difficult distinction to make and I can't say I am right or others are wrong. For that reason I believe the law as it stands is as close as we can come to an agreement in America. I am pro-choice.

Overall I was making an argument (at the moment) for inconsistent morality cross-culture, cross-history, and he was (at the moment) making an argument for it. Abortion was just one of our scenarios but we differed on the probably position of those who are pro-choice.

 

[woodie1]

I am pro choice - her body, her choice for whatever reason.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The subject of the thread is completely irrational. Until someone can show that a newborn has a human-level consciousness capable of abstract thought--capable of having a personality, it's ridiculous to contemplate the possibility that fetuses with barely developed brains could be considered children. The only way you could equate a fetus with a child is if you believe that a magic god-being "breathes" "souls" into embryos at the time of conception.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: woodie1
I am pro choice - her body, her choice for whatever reason.

So what about drugs? What about parents killing the son or daughter a day after it is born?

To say it is just the woman's body is nonsense. The woman may be carrying the baby but the child is indeed a separate entity. Just as much as we are when we are out of the womb, except we feed off of other things.

Why is it the baby has a unique set of DNA, a unique set of prints? It not matters when you feel that life begins, it matters that life has begun!

Rather you like to admit it or not but we can conceivable create our own baby without a natural womb. Does that make a difference?

Oh please....

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The subject of the thread is completely irrational. Until someone can show that a newborn has a human-level consciousness capable of abstract thought--capable of having a personality, it's ridiculous to contemplate the possibility that fetuses with barely developed brains could be considered children. The only way you could equate a fetus with a child is if you believe that a magic god-being "breathes" "souls" into embryos at the time of conception.

So why is it illegal to kill certain animals when they have not hatched yet? Would it not be considered just a retarded type mammal who can not think or act for themselves?

I am tired of paying my tax dollars and funding this crap. Enough is enough!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The subject of the thread is completely irrational. Until someone can show that a newborn has a human-level consciousness capable of abstract thought--capable of having a personality, it's ridiculous to contemplate the possibility that fetuses with barely developed brains could be considered children. The only way you could equate a fetus with a child is if you believe that a magic god-being "breathes" "souls" into embryos at the time of conception.

So why is it illegal to kill certain animals when they have not hatched yet? Would it not be considered just a retarded type mammal who can not think or act for themselves?

I am tired of paying my tax dollars and funding this crap. Enough is enough!

The only reason I can think of would be to protect certain endangered species.

 

[chess9]

I'm opposed to abortion, but would not make it illegal because that remedy is worse than abortion. In cases of rape or incest, I'd support abortion.

A fetus is life, undoubtedly. If we found one on the moon, it would be the discovery of the ages.

Work for sane birth control policies, adoptions, counseling, and support for pregnant women. Make sure they get adequate health care!

I am an agnostic, and have no religious affiliation.

-Robert

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: brencat
I think you're trying to play too cute with nuance here. And your poll doesn't give any flexibility to pro-lifers like me so I can't even vote appropriately.

My personal view is that life begins at conception. This is undisputed scientific fact, religion notwithstanding. I am pro-life and am against abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk. In these cases, the patient and family must have the freedom to decide.

What I personally would like to see is less elective abortion for reasons like 'forgot to use protection' or 'my lifestyle/career will suffer' or whatever other selfish reason, and I certainly don't want taxpayer funded abortion for poor people on demand. However, the best way is through better education, not outlawing it like the extremists want.

Despite the bad rap the Catholic churches get for teaching abstinence, their efforts have helped to dramatically reduce VD/AIDS in certain areas of Africa, where going to the local drug store or even affording a box of condoms is largely out of the reach of many impoverished people.

You know what the problem is with the "life of the mother in danger" thing is? Pregnancy is inherently life threatening. About half a million women die annually giving birth (worldwife). So that argument doesn't make sense to me.

That said, I don't like abortions, but I am pro-choice. For one, I don't think the majority of people who get abortions reach that decision easily. I am capable of empathizing with those women who get them, and realize that it probably has serious emotional consequences. Two, I'm a man, and I don't think I have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body, just as I don't think they have a right to tell me what to do with mine. Can you imagine what it would be like if men were responsible for child-bearing? It just strikes me as a patriarchal society trying, in one more way, to control what women do.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Zstream
The woman may be carrying the baby but the child is indeed a separate entity. Just as much as we are when we are out of the womb, except we feed off of other things.

That is your view. My view is just the opposite, the baby is attached to the mother by the umbilical cord acting basically as a parasite.

 

[aphex]

Pro-choice: I consider a fetus not a child and support a woman's right to choose

 

[shira]

Every couple of weeks we have one of these threads in one form or another. It's difficult for me to understand how people can use the same, sloppy terminology every time, and use the sloppy terms to justify their positions. To recapitulate:

"Human life" does NOT equal "person."

A person has inalienable rights. Killing a person without just cause is murder.

Human life begins at conception, but a human zygote is NOT a person. An early-term human fetus is NOT a person. A newborn baby in its mother's arms, that's a person. Clearly, at some point between the early fetal stage and when a newborn is held in its mother's arms, the human life created at conception becomes a person.

The legal concept of "murder" is the killing of a person. Killing a non-person isn't murder. Thus, the concept of murder doesn't apply to killing a fetus before it's a person.

Those who refer to abortion as "murder" and fetuses as "babies" are using dishonest terminology for the purpose of revving up emotions. Think about it: The same term, "baby", is being used by the anti-abortion crowd to describe a zygote and a newborn; clearly, the two are vastly different, yet the anti-abortion crowd's rhetoric doesn't distinguish between the two.

Now, at some point during gestation, the fetus becomes a person. A popular concept is that personhood is attained at fetal viability. At that point, it's fair to refer to the fetus as a "child" or "baby" and to recognize that the fetus has the same rights as other people. Before that point, it's reasonable to suppose that the fetus has incomplete rights that slowly develop as the fetus develops.

Thus, for a fetus in the first trimester, the mother's full set of rights trumps the fetuses very incomplete rights, and abortions should have few if any limitations. During the second trimester, as the fetus approaches viability, the balance begins to shift and it's reasonable to suppose that the barriers to abortion should increase. And post-viability, abortions should be permitted only in extenuating circumstances.

Guess what? What I've laid out here is pretty much what Roe v Wade says.

 

[her209]

AND if you considered homosexuality a choice, would you still be pro gay-marriage?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: her209
AND if you considered homosexuality a choice, would you still be pro gay-marriage?

Yes, I'm comfortable enough with my sexuality to not really give a damn what other people do.

 

[child of wonder]

I don't support abortion. Those who use it as birth control are abhorrent in my eyes. However, since there is no effective way to legislate who can and cannot have abortions and under what circumstances, I don't think it should be a federal law but rest with the states to decide. Furthermore, the only federal statute I would support is banning abortions beyond the first trimester. States should also encourage those who are "pro-life" to adopt children.

 

[ScottyB]

I am always for abortion, in every case. I also think people should start getting taxed heavily if they have more than two children. Abortions should be provided for free for those that can't afford them.