Im very eager to hear from Pro-Lifers. It seems to me hormonal contraception is so widely accepted, Pro-Life philosophies on the subject of hormonal contraception would be widely rejected. Perhaps, that would ultimately open up a broader discussion on the subject of abortion in areas of the US that are currently uncompromisingly Pro-Life. US Presidential elections are decided, to a certain extent, on supreme court justice appointments due to Roe v Wade. - - - Updated - - - I mostly agree that would likely happen in the US as well. Although, there are probably some details in the US like abstinence education and believing that access to birth control causes sexual behavior. The US would have to liberalize its positions on the issues of sexuality, abortion, and birth control. Its currently deadlocked on these issues.
I’ll clarify. It isn’t, technically, that I want Roe v Wade overturned. I want the issue settled. I’ve cited in previous posts 4 in 5 women use hormonal contraception. Women don’t want their birth control taken away, and that includes abortion services. 700,000 abortions every year (that number is down from 1,400,000). I think it is most definitely settled in practice. If Roe v Wade was overturned, I would predict that the resulting law created thru legislation would be very much similar to current law because “in practice” the issue is settled. The abortion topic in the US is so emotionally charged, politically divisive, it’s used as a method to vilify the Supreme Court, it’s used to slander political opponents because of it’s emotional divisiveness. One of the main slogans of the religious Pro-Life people in the US is “Life begins at conception, abortion is murder”. Conception is when an egg is fertilized. Hormonal birth control prevents implantation of a "Life" as one of its mechanisms of action. If life begins at conception and abortion is murder, then hormonal birth control is murder because it aborts a Life. Yet 4 in 5 women in the US use hormonal birth control. Would Pro-Life groups really want to openly express their positions in a legislative debate? I think when Pro-Life people in the US try to take hormonal birth control away, most people will revolt and more clearly and openly choose Pro-Choice (ie do not take away my birth control and abortions) because it will suddenly be more than simply debate concepts tossed like grenades at one another (ie abortion is murder). It will have a very real and negative impact on their lives. Legislation will be passed that is basically as the law is now with Roe v Wade, and the issue will be settled. But this can't happen with Roe v Wade in place.
This raises the question of, If the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus, on what grounds can it allow the fetus, as an incompetent actor, to intrude on the body integrity and liberty of another private party, the woman, as a means for attaining its objective? In other words, the issue is not the legitimacy of the state's interest in potential life but rather the state's justification for granting to pre-born potential life a greater right of access to another person's body than it grants born life. The courts have not yet addressed the constitutionality of the states response to the intrusion, including the use of that intrusion as a means for accomplishing the state's goal : The protection of the fetus. Not exactly what you asked the question about, but it should give you an idea of how the UK deals with it - https://embryo-ethics.smd.qmul.ac.uk/tutorials/embryo-and-the-law/english-law-foetus/ https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/rev...egal-status-of-the-foetus-and-abortion-ethics
Roe was a compromise, one that should never have been reached, it has created more problems that it solved. All restrictions concerning abortion should be removed and it should be left up to the medical community and the patient to decide what is in the best interests of that patient. This would not, as some pro-lifers suggest, mean an increase in late-term abortions because doctors would still hold the right to refuse to do it .. just as they have in Canada where it is almost impossible to get an elective abortion after 21 weeks. With no restrictions in place the number of early term abortions (below 12 weeks) would probably rise, but 2nd trimester abortions would fall, and that is something pro-lifers do not want, increasing the number of 2nd term abortions helps fuel their ideology .. in fact pro-life legislation is self-serving, it forces more women (especially the poor) to wait until the 2nd term (due to having to raise the money) to have an abortion, this in turn increases the numbers of 2nd term abortions which pro-lifers use to insist further restrictions are required and so the cycle continues. The reality is that there is no logical reason to have ANY abortion restrictions what so ever .. Canada is more than proof of that.
Ya, ya, ya, so what? Yes Texas , a bastion of hillbilly conservatism is etching away at women's rights , too.
Ohgawd, the old "boyfriend punches women in stomach killing fetus ohgawdwhatdowedowiththis conundrum" crap. We have the Unborn Victim's of Violence Act to protect women's property from being destroyed. The "BoyfriendWhoPunches PregnantWoman and Kills The Fetus"" is charged additionally, the woman did not consent to being punched in the stomach. The WOMAN has protection from people taking away her choice TO have a baby and should be protected from people trying to take away her right to not have a baby.
You can Ohgawd all you like. I was speaking to RandomObserver. I find his perspective fascinating. He has been expressing his views about "activation of the mind", "meaningful experience", "consciousness", "sedated", etc. I asked him specifically for his perspective, not yours. But since you bring up such a unique and different perspective... Is the fetus a woman's property or a part of the woman's body? Is a fetus ever part of a woman's body? At what point does it change from part of a woman's body into a woman's property? So if a boyfriend punches his girlfriend in the stomach, is she awarded damages based on the amount of value she can assess up to the point that the fetus was negligently miscarried? Should the girlfriend also be awarded for the potential that the boyfriend took from the girlfriend? I think if the fetus were property, no court could ever award any damages based on the potential to be a person. Property damages are never awarded in such a way.
Pro-life advocates have pressured politicians into behaving as if the state has an interest in protecting the unborn (they use simplistic mob-think to put politicians in the position of being "baby killers" or "rescuers"). The state, however, does not really have a compelling interest in forcing the birth of every fertilized egg. The state does have an interest in protecting the right of a woman (an actual citizen/person) to give birth if she wants to give birth. That is where the UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) laws come into play - to punish any person who would rob the woman of the potential child she has chosen to gestate. Every UVVA law adds weight to the argument that the fetus is treated as a possession of the pregnant woman, not as a person to be protected by the state. The Bible did the same thing, by the way, because a person who caused a miscarriage (even if was accidental) had to pay a fine to the father (it was a patriarchal society, so the fetus was considered the product of his seed and belonged to him). The punishment is (and was) based on damage to the actual persons (father and/or mother). The fetus (even in the Bible) was not considered a moral agent, deserving of its own rights and protections. UVVA laws are intended to avenge the family - not the fetus. It is, indeed, unclear what a newborn baby might understand after it is born, but we do know that the brain (the cerebrum) has what it needs to begin processing input from the sensory nerves from the moment of birth. Every experience from the moment the mind is activated is subject to being stored as the mind begins sorting out patterns and learning what works (and what does not work) so that person can figure out how to interact with its environment. That thread of stored experience is building the person that we will eventually know, perhaps, as Joe. If Joe goes into a coma later, we try to preserve Joe's body because we hope he can resume that thread of experience that makes him "Joe." Someday in the future we may figure out how to transplant Joe's brain into Bill's body, or we may even figure out how to capture a "snapshot" of Joe's active mind and install it in a brand new cloned brain in Joe's brand new cloned body (which would prove that it is the thread of experience - not the physical body - that makes the person). In my opinion, the mind should be protected when it begins to incorporate experience. Before that point, the body is just a mechanical life-support system under construction for a mind that may or may not ever inhabit that body. Viability is the point when the average fetus is likely to survive outside the womb, but as you said... it has nothing to do with pain, experience, or consciousness. Remember Roe v Wade was decided in the seventies. Politicians and lawyers are not scientists, so they could be tricked into believing that the fetus was actually thinking about what it does inside the womb. In the eighties and nineties more research has been done to understand the developmental stages of the brain. That research makes it clear that the brain only has the potential to recognize sensory input in the last 4-6 weeks of gestation, and cannot really do so because it is still sedated by the blood chemistry in the womb. The claim that the fetus experiences pain in the womb would be equivalent to the claim that a heart transplant patient feels pain during surgery. In both cases there are living sensory nerves but the mind is sedated so it does not experience the pain. At most the primitive brain stem might trigger a reflex response.
The fetus is part of the woman's body and her property just as her heart and toes are her property. If a person ( see, it doesn't have to be a "boyfriend" or a husband , it can be any PERSON) causes a woman to miscarry ( and it does NOT have to be a punch in the stomach) they are assaulting her and depriving her of her right to her potential child. They should be punished more severely ...just as cutting off someone's arm will get a more severe sentence than punching someone .
Viability is typically viewed to be any time from 20 to 24 weeks. But as medical advancements in premature birth continue, laws will reflect this and viability will be defined earlier and earlier in term. Technically speaking, viability is case by case. No fetus develops precisely the same, therefore viability is not the same.
I do understand it could be anyone. The reason the boyfriend/husband discussion was used is because domestic violence, parental rights of the father, etc. Obviously, now there are arguments about what the rights of the father should be. Just to make things clear. I am an atheist that is Pro-Choice. I originally started this thread trying to get some input from Pro-Life people to express to me why hormonal birth control should be considered abortion, therefore murder. The US has navigated Roe v Wade laws for decades, used it's language and concepts as a framework of discussion, and has basically confused the public on even the most basic of topics, like birth control, that there should be overwhelming general consensus on. Everyone has their own angle on the subject. I find it fascinating. I just wish a Pro-Life person or two would respond so I can understand what their thoughts on hormonal birth control is.
I understand... with Roe vs Wade in place, it is a compromise that is comfortable for most people... but it keeps a status quo that supports too much government intrusion into a very personal decision. I think (even with Roe vs Wade in place) we all have to do what we can to call out the lies and misleading statements when we see them. As a Christian, I am especially concerned when I see Christian leaders trying to mislead the public (it is still false witness when you make misleading statements or deliberately omit relevant facts).
Yes indeed. Total deadlock and impasse. Roe v Wade is a mess. Would it be an example of legislating from the bench? I tend to think that opening up the argument to discuss the details might improve the debate rather than allowing each side to just say "abortion is murder" vs "it's a woman's right". My view is that if I accept the argument that Life begins at conception (I do not), then hormonal birth control is murder. 4 in 5 women in the US use hormonal birth control, therefore 80% of women don't agree with the Pro-Life position. Pro-Life people would not have an argument, women would likely change their positions to Pro-Choice. Women who are Pro-Life would also be given voice to be able to express their concerns to protect the unborn. Currently, the most widely known method for protecting the unborn in conservative states is "abortion is wrong", "it is killing a person", "how else could you convict a murderer of a pregnant woman with double homicide unless we define the unborn as some kind of person". UVVA laws solve these problems. I honestly don't know what the solution would be to get Pro-Contraception women to the Pro-Choice side. I have convinced every woman I know. Many others don't trust Pro-Choice operatives and their language because it sounds like Pro-Choice people think that an unborn potential person is nothing more than a cluster of cells and shouldn't have value until it has it's own experiences or develops consciousness. Where do you get this whole concept that the newborn baby's brain is "activated". "Activated" in a brain terminology sense simply means "cause to function". "Activated" doesn't mean "switched on for the first time". "Activating" parts of the brain can shape the brain especially when it is a new experience. But "activate" can be used to describe the mother's brain as well as she develops bonds with her newborn. So I'm not sure how you mean by "activated".
For many years philosophers have understood that the body just makes us animals like any other beast, but the mind makes us persons. For many years philosophers have argued that we do not really begin human life (person-hood) until we become conscious, but the simplistic argument against that is that we do not allow a person to be killed just because they have been knocked unconscious. I think some philosophers also get tangled up in arguments about how conscious you have to be (which leads to accusations that a one year old might not qualify as a person yet). My position is that we are justified in giving the benefit of the doubt to the newborn because (a) its cerebrum is able to incorporate sensory input - a feat that is impossible until the last 4-6 weeks before birth, and (b) it is getting enough oxygen to allow the cerebrum to perform that function - a feat that is impossible until actual birth. Scientific American had an excellent article in 2009 that describes the situation. Global neuronal integration was, at that time, the last known mechanical impediment to meaningful thought (and that begins about 4-6 weeks before birth). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ I refer to it as the activation of the mind because a conscious mind can later become unconscious, but an activated mind (whether momentarily conscious or unconscious) represents a thread of experience that may be paused but can only be eliminated when the brain is no longer functional (e.g. cases like Terri Schiavo).
Thanks! I find the subject absolutely fascinating. I dont think those perspective would go over all that well in the US. I think one of the solutions to these complicated issues is that the fetus is part of the woman until birth. A fetus isnt taking from the women, it is the woman. Only at birth does it become its own person, or perhaps it becomes its own person at viability. The killer of a pregnant mother can not be charged with double homicide unless the fetus has some defined status, otherwise there is a lot of questions and inconsistencies in the law. I hope English law has become more consistent and more thoroughly examined. Another solution would be to define a fetus as child in utero rather than calling it not not something as English law basically does as described in the first link. https://embryo-ethics.smd.qmul.ac.uk/tutorials/embryo-and-the-law/english-law-foetus/ https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/rev...egal-status-of-the-foetus-and-abortion-ethics
Gotcha. Well, I definitely agree that science informs us, it depends what we do with the information that counts. I just don't think science tells us that certain things are activated or not activated in the sense that you're describing them. But I'm not too awfully metaphysical so who knows.
Science will NOT "fast forward" gestation. Ridiculous. But maybe in the future undeveloped fetuses can be removed and, at great cost and for no good reason, be grown in laboratories. No, viability, for the sake of law is 23 weeks, exception don't and shouldn't count. NONE of that should infringe on a woman's right to have an abortion.
The UK laws are not much better than the US laws, both could have addressed the issue of the killing of a fetus by increasing the penalties imposed via the harm caused to the female, which is what was proposed as an alternative to the unborn victims of violence act.
Sorry no, medical ability has come to the point concerning premature birth where it cannot increase survival chances any more, unless medical science comes up with some sort of artificial womb the definitive line is not going to fall below 21 weeks. In the UK extremely premature babies are those born between 22 and 26 weeks' gestation. These babies have been the subject of the EPICure studies, which have been running in Britain since 1995 to monitor survival and morbidity rates at birth, and outcomes for the surviving babies as they grow older. Within this category of extreme prematurity, there are babies born at the 'threshold of viability', defined by the RCOG as 23+0 weeks to 24+6 weeks of gestation. In a Scientific Impact Paper published in February 2014, the College notes that "there is international consensus that at 22 weeks of gestation there is no hope of survival, and that up to 22+6 weeks is considered to be the cut-off of human viability." - Page 2 - https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/scientific-impact-papers/sip_41.pdf Put simply the fetus is not developed enough to survive below 21 weeks, and even of it does most have severe disabilities.
Very little advancement in Viability last 20 to 30 years. We get here occasional rare case of a baby surviving under 22 weeks but these remain rare and fraught with risks of severe medical issues. Often there is ongoing disability for the life of the child
Do you really accept the assertion that the state has an interest in protecting the unborn? Or do UVVA laws demonstrate that the state has an interest in protecting the property of the pregnant woman, or her family in the event that she also does not survive? There are also laws to punish people who trespass and damage or destroy your property, but that does not mean your car (for example) is a person or is being protected by these laws. They are protecting your interest in your car, or your potential child. The most logical reason for the state to be concerned about negligence is that it is likely to produce a newborn who is unhealthy and needs more resources to survive. For example, drinking a lot during pregnancy is likely to produce a newborn with fetal alcohol syndrome and that is likely to cost the family (and probably the state) more to keep this new person physically and mentally healthy. It represents a drain on the resources of society. If, instead, negligence causes a miscarriage, that is a tragedy for the woman and her family (assuming that they wanted a child). I suspect the states that would further punish a woman with a jail term have a hidden agenda - They probably have strict anti-abortion laws in place and they are are going overboard to discourage women from using alternative methods to get an abortion.
I understand the property rights concept. But, for example, a person who harms their own property, or fails to protect it, suffers no consequences except their own loss. It is presumed that a woman will, in fact, have a greater interest in protecting herself than failing to protect herself. UVVA laws define a fetus as "a homo sapiens carried in the womb", they don't define a fetus as property. Perhaps you feel that causing harm to a fetus should be a civil matter rather than a criminal matter? But, to me, that doesn't address negligence by the woman. A baby can not sue her mother. Pro-Choice people have serious reservations about legislation designed to protect fetuses because they fear it can endanger women's rights to choose. I'm not sure when the state should be interested in compelling a woman to be concerned about the welfare of her child (potential child), and therefore hold a woman negligent for the treatment of herself that ultimately harms her child (potential child). But, yes, I think the state has an interest in protecting the unborn in some way. A woman addicted to glue sniffing who has had two permanently disabled children due to her addiction is pregnant with her third, can she be ordered to go to a rehab facility? Should she? Her fetus isn't protected.
I believe the state has a legitimate interest in discouraging activity that might harm the state (e.g. cost more tax money) or harm your neighbors. If you are harming your own property in a way that might endanger your neighbors (e.g. firing a rifle at the propane tank in your back yard) the state would take an interest in that. If you are chopping up a chair for firewood, the state should not interfere with your decision of what to do with your own chair. The state has no legitimate interest in interfering with your decision to get an abortion, but they might have a legitimate interest in interfering if you are causing damage to a seedling that might grow into a person who will cause harm to the neighbors or to state. The state does have a legitimate interest in discouraging self-induced abortions because an unskilled person might injure the pregnant woman or induce an actual birth (which might lead to the death of a newborn). In my opinion, the state does not have a legitimate interest in interfering with any abortion performed by a skilled practitioner with the consent of the pregnant woman. The zygote/embyo/fetus is not yet a moral agent and has rights such as those granted to persons born in the US (or born in any other country). I would say the state has a legitimate interest in avoiding a third disabled child, but I think a better solution (after the first disabled child was determined to be the result of drug abuse) would be to offer the woman the option of (a) rehab or (b) long-term implanted birth control. Who knows, if she is heavily addicted to drugs she might even request a tubal ligation (although many "pro-lifers" would oppose that because then she gets to have all the sex she wants without the punishment).
