Arkansas court rules fetus is 'a person.'

May 11, 2001 11:17 AM

Arkansas court rules fetus is 'a person.' The court's ruling addressed "a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by a man whose wife and unborn child died during birth procedures." What does this mean for the abortion battle under the current administration?
posted by Julia2100 (74 comments total)

Discussed at length a while back when the House of Representatives passed a similar bill.
posted by schlyer at 11:24 AM on May 11, 2001

I doubt it has much impact at all. We're talking about a 9 month pregnancy and an induced labor. If someone took a baseball bat to the woman's abdomen, no one would think twice about charging the guy for murder of the baby.
posted by fleener at 11:32 AM on May 11, 2001

I think the abortion rights people would draw a lot more people to their side if they would acknowledge that at some point prior to birth, the being inside a pregnant woman is a baby, and not something other or less. I really don't get the whole absolutist, or at least,seeming absolutest stance of those defending abortion rights.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:42 AM on May 11, 2001

Dear Paris Paramus: of course it would make things much easier for those opposed to abortion if the other side would agree with them. But using that logic, why not assert that it would make things better for anti-abortion folks if they would admit that an unborn is still not anything but an unborn. An egg is not a chicken.
That said, why not read up on the position taken by those who are pro-abortion to see what exactly their positon is.
posted by Postroad at 11:47 AM on May 11, 2001

That said, why not read up on the position taken by those who are pro-abortion to see what exactly their positon is.

My point is that, whatever the position is, it doesn't get through in the major, or in my experience, the "minor" media. Also, if you are suggesting that a fetus/baby should not be considered a full-fledged human being a day before, or a week before it is born, well, that's just sick.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:52 AM on May 11, 2001

Let's be fair in our analogies, here. An egg may not be a chicken, but an unborn child is still a child. Besides the idea of an internal incubation, the process of giving birth to a child and laying an egg seem biologically dissimilar.
posted by Julia2100 at 11:56 AM on May 11, 2001

The problem with letting the fetus be a baby is as follows: Let us say the woman's life is in danger and if the baby is not aborted late in her pregnancy then she will die. If the fetus is considered a person then the doctor will not be able to abort the fetus. If he does he will could be charged with murder. This is why the abortion debate is so hard.
posted by aj100 at 11:58 AM on May 11, 2001

Paris, why is that sick?

There seem to be two major points of contention in the abortion debate, summed up by the names that either side has selected for themselves: pro-choice (abortion is about choice) and pro-life (abortion is killing a person). Since the public isn't too crazy about losing its power to choose things, the pro-life side is working to shift the argument to "fetus-vs.-person" semantics. And the easiest way to argue for this side is to use stories of victims who didn't ask to lose their fetuses/unborn children, build up public sympathy, and let people come to their own, emotionally-charged conclusions.

I think that's why you find the often "absolutist stance" on the side of the abortion rights crowd. With every little attack on the fundamental belief that women (and by extension, all people) have the right to decide what they do with their bodies, a precedent is formed. Both of these cases (the violent attack and the negligent doctor) are horrible because they came from violence or negligence, not because they involve a fetus. But these cases are being used as steps on the path towards saying that a woman does not have the right to choose. I sympathize with the women involved (and the children that may have had) because they were not given a choice. That does not make the fetus a person.
posted by turaho at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2001

I say you should be allowed to abort fetuses up to the 24th trimester.
posted by solistrato at 12:01 PM on May 11, 2001

And let me be the first to point out:

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. No one likes the idea of it. If they do, then they truly are sick.

I'll let the rest of the debate be argued by others.
posted by jragon at 12:13 PM on May 11, 2001

Look. I support abortion rights up to a point (a number of weeks--not sure how many, actually). But if the best argument abortion rights advocates can make is one which doesn't acknowledge that a fetus/baby a few weeks pre-due date is not a full fledged human being, abortion rights will not be around much longer in most of the United States.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:22 PM on May 11, 2001

Considering that if a normal, healthy couple has sex every day they still have only a 25% chance of conceiving each cycle, how are 49% of all American pregnancies unintentional?

Does it count as unintentional if you're "not really trying"? That's kind of a ridiculous definition, is it not? Are you always either A) trying to get pregnant or B) trying not to? Probably not an accurate representation, since most times you're "just having sex", but if a couple isn't using any form of birth control and gets pregnant, can you really call that unintentional?

According to the statistics on that second link, 2% of women 15-44 years old get an abortion, and 25% of all pregnancies are aborted, so that 2% of women are having 25% of all pregnancies, and aborting them. What???

Get sex ed in the schools, make it some flavor of mandatory, teach people how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, give 'em all the condoms they need, do something.

And what's stopping a law making it illegal to kill a fetus (in any stage of development) against the mother's wishes? Why do you have to try an attacker for murder?
posted by techgnollogic at 12:24 PM on May 11, 2001

ParisParamus: There are indeed many of us who both support the right to an abortion, and believe that at some point before birth, a fetus has developed enough that it would be wrong to abort it.

and Postroad: This is not the same as agreeing with those who oppose abortion altogether.

A chicken is a chicken. An egg is an egg.
An egg that is just about to hatch is an egg with a baby chicken inside of it.

None of this seems terribly controversial to me. The controversy arises because there's a long period of time during which it's hard to say what kind of personhood should be assigned to a developing fetus, and because the rights of that developing fetus often have to be balanced against the rights of the mother.

To me personally, it seems silly to consider a collection of just a few dozen barely-formed cells "a person", and so I can't see anything even moderately disturbing about an abortion early in pregnancy. Because I see nothing wrong with it, and because I can see many cases in which it would be necessary (or at least a good option), I believe that banning abortion in such circumstances would be unduly restrictive, even oppressive.

Many people point out that late in pregnancy, the fetus has developed so far that it is essentially a functioning baby, one which could even, if need be, survive on its own, and that therefore there is little reason to distinguish abortion at this stage from infanticide.

Because the stakes of the debate seem so high, people on both sides are often tempted to drift into absolutism, but it's worth remembering that both sides have good reasons for their basic arguments.
posted by moss at 12:24 PM on May 11, 2001

Paris: Oh! I posted my big long post before I'd seen this... it appears we're basically in agreement.
posted by moss at 12:27 PM on May 11, 2001

I think my take is the same as yours, moss. It can be summed up as: if it can survive without being connected to the mother with the umbilical cord, it is a child -- if not, it's not a human.

But that's just a corollary to my pro-choice position. My big beef with the issue is that I don't want the government telling someone what they can or cannot do with themselves and what's inside them.
posted by OneBallJay at 12:36 PM on May 11, 2001

And what's stopping a law making it illegal to kill a fetus (in any stage of development) against the mother's wishes?

Exactly. Leave the moral decision of "is a fetus a person?" to the individual and don't base legislation on it.

And since neither absolutist position is necessarily correct, I think we should permit the individual to make the decision for themselves.

I'm reminded of the old bumper sticker: "Against abortion? Don't have one."
posted by turaho at 12:43 PM on May 11, 2001

"And what's stopping a law making it illegal to kill a fetus (in any stage of development) against the mother's wishes?"

Tech, I mean, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure its gotta be illegal to kill a fetus against a mothers wishes already.
posted by Doug at 12:43 PM on May 11, 2001

You would think so... But if that's the case, what's the importance of the original link? I wonder why it's necessary to extend the definition of "person" if killing a fetus is already illegal...
posted by techgnollogic at 12:51 PM on May 11, 2001

Absolutely the fetus is a person, it has its own seperate DNA from the mother, hopefully this will begin an end to elective abortion
posted by PatMcGroin at 12:52 PM on May 11, 2001

I can't wait until my ova are declared persons under the law, so that I can drive in the carpool lane without guilt.
posted by kristin at 12:54 PM on May 11, 2001

if it can survive without being connected to the mother with the umbilical cord, it is a child -- if not, it's not a human.


Absurd a new born baby can "survive" without being attached via umbilical cord, but it wont survive too long unlesss someone feeds it.
posted by PatMcGroin at 12:54 PM on May 11, 2001

Paris, moss, I agree with you both. Furthermore, I think most people are really on some part of the middle road on this. Having read the April 26th thread before reading past the first post the two are bleeding together. I whole-heartedly agree with the notion that sex ed (real sex ed not the wussy vague stuff I had) needs to be taught at some point because its not brain surgery to prevent pregnancy. It ain't cancer, we know what causes it and there are many very effective ways to stop it from occurring in the first place. Which would, in theory, eliminate this debate.
posted by srw12 at 12:54 PM on May 11, 2001

if it can survive without being connected to the mother with the umbilical cord, it is a child -- if not, it's not a human.

I spent a lot of time in a preemie intensive care ward last summer. Every incubator was occupied by a baby that could not have survived outside their mother's womb without intensive intervention. And they all looked like children to me.
posted by lileks at 12:57 PM on May 11, 2001

And slightly off-topic...

According to the statistics on that second link, 2% of women 15-44 years old get an abortion, and 25% of all pregnancies are aborted, so that 2% of women are having 25% of all pregnancies, and aborting them. What???

The missing number is what percent of women 15-44 get pregnant. Let's use some sample numbers: In a group of 1000 women, there may be 80 pregnancies (8% of the group, which sounds reasonable to me) in one year. Of these 80 women, 25% percent, or 20 have an abortion. 2% of the original group, or 20 women, get 20 abortions.
posted by turaho at 12:58 PM on May 11, 2001

"You would think so... But if that's the case, what's the importance of the original link? I wonder why it's necessary to extend the definition of "person" if killing a fetus is already illegal..."

I can think of a few reasons, all of which having to do with abortion.
posted by Doug at 12:58 PM on May 11, 2001

Doug - its gotta be illegal to kill a fetus against a mothers wishes already.

It is not illegal to do so. The person will still be guilty of assault/battery/whatever against the woman, but there is no crime the person could be charged with for killing the unbon child.

turaho - Leave the moral decision of "is a fetus a person?" to the individual

That decision is not based on morality ; its based on science. The truly ironic thing is that the pro-life folks who need science on this issue to claim that a fetus is a human - hesitate to use it in their argument because they are often the same people who need to ignore science in the whole evolution in schools debate.

From where I sit a fetus is a human. Period. To argue otherwise is to ignore the science of the fact. Given that, if you want to go ahead and still be pro-choice - then fine. But go into that decision with your eyes open.
posted by schlyer at 1:01 PM on May 11, 2001

I can't wait until my ova are declared persons under the law, so that I can drive in the carpool lane without guilt.


Trivializing an issue which is inherently serious with stupid remarks just gives more weight to the "pro-life" side.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:01 PM on May 11, 2001

I totally agree with you Doug.
Here's one the folks in Arkansas might consider:
What if Dana Sculley (X Files) ends up having an alien baby? Is it a person? Is it a fetus? Would it be protected?
posted by nofundy at 1:04 PM on May 11, 2001

Lileks,

That is so true, there are plenty of babies that cannot survive outside the womb, therefore eliminating the arguement a human is a baby that is not attached to an umbilical cord. Elective abortion is simply the easy way to avoid responsiblity for irresponsible sex by irresponsible people.
posted by PatMcGroin at 1:06 PM on May 11, 2001

Schlyer: I agree with you, very much. I wish more people coult state their beliefs with their eyes wide open rather than attempting to ignore aspects they're simply not comfortable with.

And paris, regarding your item above, many people do view this for entertainment purposes, beyond just classical debate. There's nothing wrong with having a sense of humour in the mix.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 1:07 PM on May 11, 2001

All I know is, my world was rocked recently when my sister gave birth FOUR MONTHS early. This was in January. The baby got to go home last week, with nothing wrong except minor vision problems. To me, it is a miracle that this kid could survive at all, much less have prospects to live a relatively normal, healthy life.

I am still pro-choice, but... the cutoff date should be early, in my opinion.
posted by Ben Grimm at 1:08 PM on May 11, 2001

Paris, moss, I agree with you both. Furthermore, I think most people are really on some part of the middle road on this.

Paris is "middle of the road" in this debate? He couldn't even acknowledge a good joke.

Please, people, your little bundles of joy are not sacred. Get over yourselves. You do not have an absolute right to breed. A baby is not sacred. Neither is a fetus. Life is not precious; life is indiscriminate.

Sigh.
posted by solistrato at 1:13 PM on May 11, 2001

I am still pro-choice, but... the cutoff date should be early, in my opinion.

The Talmud refers to the soul entering the body on the 40th day: sounds like a good cutoff to me...yes, I know it's not scientific (and not proposed for legislation...)
posted by ParisParamus at 1:13 PM on May 11, 2001

Paris, since kristin is presumably a woman, she probably has a largish stake in the issue . . . larger than yours, maybe? Taking time out in the "serious" thread to diss someone's comment as a "stupid remark" seems to violate your own evidently high standards of discourse.

Besides, it wasn't a stupid remark. It was meant to point out the inherent impossibility in finding a boundary line between when a fetus stops being a collection of cells and when it becomes a kid. Saying the fetus isn't "human" one day before birth is just as stupid as saying an hour-old fertilized ova is a playground-ready child.

So we do it just like we do with drinking ages, voting ages, etc. Arbitrarily, sort of, but with as much dispassionate reason and science and agreement as we can find. Late-term abortions are not sanctioned or performed in this or most other countries for just these reasons: there is (some) consensus that at this particular point in the pregnancy, time (X), it is no longer moral to abort the fetus.
posted by Skot at 1:15 PM on May 11, 2001

Not only are many children born (and saved) long before they are meant to, and long before they can live without significant medical intervention, there are many children who are born just when they're supposed to be, who don't survive at all. What the child may or may not do or could or could not do outside of the womb is completely individual and largely irrelevant in the discussion of abortion.
posted by Dreama at 1:17 PM on May 11, 2001

Paris, the topic isn't inherently serious. It's absurd. Maybe you're angered by Kristins comment because it points out just how absurd it is? And nice suggestion, too, basing law on insane ancient superstition.
schlyer, I don't know what you mean. It clearly IS illegal to kill a woman's fetus. The person might not be charged with what you'd like him to be charged with, but the person would go to prison.
posted by Doug at 1:18 PM on May 11, 2001

From where I sit a fetus is a human.

Agreed, but is it a person? Now we're wandering away from science into philosophy.

If a fetus is a person within a few days/weeks/months before birth, and a fetus isn't a person within a few days/weeks/months after conception, at what point does the fetus become a person? How can we know?

I prefer to say we can't, and propose we set the arbritrary date of six months. Now, can we all agree that abortion before that moment is okay, and abortion after that point isn't okay? All right, now we're getting somewhere!

Wait a second... you don't buy it? You think abortion should always be legal/illegal? I guess we'll need different criteria besides whether a fetus is a person to decide whether abortion should be legal or not.

Again, the pro-choice stance does not include forcing women to have abortions. Many pro-choice people (including all of the men) will never have an abortion. Our position is, we cannot pretend to know all of the answers, and we would prefer to leave the decision to the individual and not the government. (Almost sounds like a Republican argument, huh?)
posted by turaho at 1:19 PM on May 11, 2001

Abortion is simply a way to flush the baby down the sink, so the mother wont be "burdened" for 9 months to bear the child. Wow, what a burden, 9 months vs an entire lifetime. Abortion is not a noble act, it's a selfish one in most circumstances (not including rape, incest etc....)
posted by PatMcGroin at 1:23 PM on May 11, 2001

Abortion is simply a way to flush the baby down the sink, so the mother wont be "burdened" for 9 months to bear the child. Wow, what a burden, 9 months vs an entire lifetime. Abortion is not a noble act, it's a selfish one in most circumstances (not including rape, incest etc....)
posted by PatMcGroin at 1:23 PM on May 11, 2001

PatMcGroin, that's an awfully emotional argument to base legislation on, wouldn't you say?
posted by turaho at 1:25 PM on May 11, 2001

Please, people, your little bundles of joy are not sacred.

Actually, if more people thought that the children they had were incredibly precious, we'd be in better shape.
posted by lileks at 1:28 PM on May 11, 2001

personally, i don't like the whole scientific angle in abortion, because i don't think it does much for your argument. the notion of "life" requires, for many common definitions, an establishment of sentience, which is in itself a disputed term. it's a no-win situation.

since everyone else is tossing in their two pennies, i might as well. i'm pro-choice in the sense that i am for the initial choice of the woman not to have a child. if by rape she is not given that choice, abortion must be available. if a woman is under the age of consent, abortion must be available. if contraception was used and circumvented by chance, abortion must be made available. but i don't believe you should abort a fetus because you and your SO didn't take, but could have taken, the proper precautions.

yah, some of these opinions would be difficult to substantiate. try proving you did or did not use contraception. maybe you can in the case of BC pills, but probably not in the case of condoms—i'm wary of putting too much of the responsibility of some of these choices solely on the woman. still, as a theory, i believe in what i've stated. i do not deny that it is laudable to try and "save" the lives of the unborn by those who are pro-life, but i do not want to, in so doing, deny the rights of the mother (and father?). the ends do not necessarily justify the means.
posted by moz at 1:30 PM on May 11, 2001

From the CNN find-law-link:
the previous ruling that "... a viable fetus is not a 'person' within the meaning of Arkansas' wrongful-death statute." is now overruled. That's what it is all about. The appellant's want the defendants to be charged with wrongful-death. No abortion issues. No hidden agenda's. Just plain legal revenge. The highest possible legal punishment would be man-slauther, and that's what their after.
posted by nonharmful at 1:32 PM on May 11, 2001

The reasons for absolutism are strong on both sides here. The people who claim that a fetus at nine months is not a person are comparable to those who would criminalize day-after abortion pills.

Neither side can afford to be granting concessions to the other at a time when abortion rights are very much an open question.

My personal belief: the state should not be able to force women to bring every conception to term, but there ought to be a point somewhere around 20 weeks that it should become illegal except when the mother's life is at risk.
posted by rcade at 1:32 PM on May 11, 2001

Elective abortion is simply the easy way to avoid responsiblity for irresponsible sex by irresponsible people.

Abortion is simply a way to flush the baby down the sink, so the mother wont be "burdened" for 9 months to bear the child.

I'll step up to the plate here, Pat, and just go ahead and say that you're an asshole who's not interested in actual debate, but would rather parrot a whole lot of antiabortionist platitudes and taglines. You could at least cite the pamphlet authors.

I've been in the room with my girlfriend while she had an abortion. She agonized over it--we both did, and hey, sorry about being so irresponsible by having sex with her, boy, I sure feel dumb, but she was on the pill, so I guess it's chastity belts from now on. She works with children, she loves children, and she'd probably go absolutely apeshit over your suggestion that we were flushing a child down the sink, as opposed to vacuuming a handful of meiotic cells out of her womb. The choice came down to the fact that neither of us were ready to be parents, and we weren't willing to have a child and then simply give it up; we weren't ready, we couldn't afford it and we would have made for crappy parents. You can argue with my point of view, you can think I'm immoral and disgusting, you can do all of that, I really don't give a fuck, but irresponsible? Up yours. You don't know me--hell, you don't want to, you just want to stir up a bunch of shit in this thread. Hey, it worked. Congratulations.

Sorry, folks. Over and out for me in this thread.
posted by Skot at 1:37 PM on May 11, 2001

Skot, thanks for all the personal insults had I said what you had said, using the same vulgarities you did, I surely would have been labeled a "troll" and banned from the site by matt, but since youre from the left, Im sure you wont be banned. You have that priviledge.

If you weren't ready to have a child, you and your girllfriend shouldn't have been having sex to begin with, you see Skot, children are a by product of sex, ever heard of that? You and your girlfriend could haveeasily placed the child up for adoption, but that was apparently too inconvinient for you both, God forbid it take 9 months out of your self-consuming lives.
posted by PatMcGroin at 1:42 PM on May 11, 2001

If the plantiff's goals were merely legal revenge, than making the termination of a fetus without the mother's consent a crime would have done the trick. To fight for a fetus to be defined as a person so that the defendant may be prosecuted under existing wrongful-death laws strikes me as having an ulterior motive.
posted by turaho at 1:44 PM on May 11, 2001

Even though medical technology can sustain babies born earlier and earlier all the time, there is still a discriminate point at which a fetus can be viable outside of the uterus.

Like Ben Grimm's sister, a woman I work with gave birth to triplets (one stillborn) in Week 24 of her pregnancy, and the surviving babies have managed to hang on despite the need for massive medical intervention and the likelihood that they will have severe disabilities as they grow up. Even Week 24 is a dicey proposition for survival.

Personally, I'd buy turaho's arbitrary demarcation for now, with the proviso that if medical technology made even further advances then the demark point could be revised.
posted by briank at 1:47 PM on May 11, 2001

When abortion discussions get nasty, as they always do, I think The Onion is a good place to turn.

Two classic Point-Counterpoints:
One
Two
posted by Mrmuhnrmuh at 1:47 PM on May 11, 2001

If someone does a stupid thing like leaving a young girl pregnant I think is acceptable, or if someone has been rape, is acceptable. I think the source of that decision is beyond or point of view.
If your 14 year old daughter is pregnant by a 15 year old kid, should her take the responsibility of having that baby??? BS....!! I think we are asking to much???

One thing is practicing abortion with a bat. another as a precaution of bringing someone to life when is not desired, Procreation is a big responsibility but you have to be ready for it. Mentally and economically.

Certainly I'm opposed to 9 month abortion, but for a few weeks under an understandable situation I think is not up to us to judge the people who has take this decision, I think is hard enough for them already and for us as a society to point them with our finger as sinners.

I've seen people bringing kids to suffer not to offered them the love, understanding and opportunities that our kids deserve.

My comment is: abortion is not a moral thing to do, but bringing a kid as punishment for the stupidity of some kids having sex, I do not think more cruel than performing a removal of an egg. Before more pain can be created.
posted by tonyramirez7 at 1:49 PM on May 11, 2001

PrivateParts?
posted by rcade at 1:50 PM on May 11, 2001

Skot was right, Pat, you really are an asshole. But I'm on the left, so, ya know, I can say that and not be banned. Skot opens up, has a legitimate reason to be angry with you, and the only thing your little pea brain can do is channel Dr. Laura?
posted by Doug at 1:51 PM on May 11, 2001

Pat, Skot is not trolling, he's responding to your emotional-without-reasoning statements. You touched a nerve by trying to change the tone of this argument from a rational discussion to an attack upon people who have a certain belief. I doubt he would have posted if you hadn't provoked him with your statements.
posted by turaho at 1:51 PM on May 11, 2001

Skot, PatMcGroin, take if offline! Oh, wait, our mutual friend Mike doesn't have an email address posted. Mike, put up an address we can write to you with, cause I'd like to use it too.
posted by OneBallJay at 1:53 PM on May 11, 2001

i will only say one thing about you, pat. i love your personal attacks, because they do my job for me. they prove to me and everyone else that you are insecure about your own beliefs, and must bypass arguments of fact or reasoned opinion for vitriol. thanks, pat.
posted by moz at 1:53 PM on May 11, 2001

And Mrmuhnrmuh, that was some pretty funny stuff you've got there.
posted by OneBallJay at 1:57 PM on May 11, 2001

Skot, that was honest personal stuff. You're right, until you have to make the decision (or choice, hence 'pro-choice') you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's easy to scream and shout out opinions just for the fun of it, but discussing a topic is something else. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion as long as it doesn't have an unacceptable high risk of intentionally hurting or offending others.


... and that's my opinion.


Abortion is not easy (not for the woman involved (not mother), not for the man involved (not father), and not for the doctor involved. It's not an easy way out. That doesn't mean it's not wrong and it doesn't mean it's okay.


Adoption is not easy.


Caring for a child is you do not want, is not easy.


A child has a right to have loving parents. If a man and a woman get pregnant and decide that they can't take care of the child, it's their choice to decide what's best for them.
If you don't want an abortion, that legal. If you do want an abortion, that legal as well. Suck it up, and deal......


next topic.
posted by nonharmful at 2:02 PM on May 11, 2001

I think it's brillo that a guy with a handle of "PatMcGroin" has such a raving anti-sex, anti-woman, asshole attitude.
posted by mimi at 2:40 PM on May 11, 2001

Well, I'll step up along side Skot and tell you that I'd have an abortion in a shot if I became pregnant again. Why? Because we uncovered a long history of serious mental illness in my mother's family after my son became affected.

*If* I became pregnant, it *would* be a complete accident -- we're meticulous in our birth control practices -- but I'd refuse to risk bringing another child into the world who might be as badly affected as my son. As it is, we make ends meet, thanks to good medical care, insurance, and legal mandates of medical parity and special ed. But we know many people view our child as a burden to society -- a view that will only intensify when he becomes an adult. So even if I had the endurance to handle another affected child, I can't count on society to be there for them. Yeah, I'm glad I have a choice.
posted by debrahyde at 2:52 PM on May 11, 2001

Abortion will occur, whether it is legal, or not.
It seems to me that both sides would get a lot further, if they focused the energy they spend on deciding 'when life begins' into the prevention of unplanned pregnancies.

Regarding the article, given the circumstances, I do not believe it will be drawn into the abortion argument with much success.
posted by hmwhite at 2:52 PM on May 11, 2001

Paris, since kristin is presumably a woman, she probably has a largish stake in the issue . . . larger than yours, maybe?

By the way, I find it really offensive to suggest that because I can't get pregnant, I have no, or inferior standing here. This isn't about the inconvenience of being pregnant; it's about the question of whether and when a fetus should be attributed the rights of a person. If you can't grasp this, you're never going to successfully defend abortion rights.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:37 PM on May 11, 2001

Skot was right, Pat, you really are an asshole. But I'm on the left, so, ya know, I can say that and not be banned.

I think it's brillo that a guy with a handle of "PatMcGroin" has such a raving anti-sex, anti-woman, asshole attitude.

i will only say one thing about you, pat. i love your personal attacks, because they do my job for me. they prove to me and everyone else that you are insecure about your own beliefs, and must bypass arguments of fact or reasoned opinion for vitriol. thanks, pat.

I havent made any "personal attacks" nor have I stooped to some of the name-calling and profanity by others.... which is allowed because they are from the left and Matt will not ban anyone from the left, no matter how vulgar their comments might be. I simply advocate responsible sex and adoption instead of abortion and look at the firestorm.
posted by PatMcGroin at 4:46 PM on May 11, 2001

The pro-abortionists have shaped their cause by the more agreeable stance that a pre-born baby isn't "alive", which is just semantics.

They've done their cause a disservice though it probably wouldn't have got this far if they'd admitted the truth.

Abortion is best because it's an unwanted life (harsh, entirely true) that hasn't experienced anything much to lose. There are enough children born without caring parents, especially ones that aren't ready for it. It's never been an easy decision and my friends who have done so have beaten themselves up for years (and, however much it "wasn't alive", I'm sure they often think about the "what if's").

-- Holloway, who's pro-choice.
posted by holloway at 6:03 PM on May 11, 2001

I simply advocate responsible sex and adoption instead of abortion and look at the firestorm.

Liar.

You and your girlfriend could haveeasily placed the child up for adoption, but that was apparently too inconvinient for you both, God forbid it take 9 months out of your self-consuming lives.

That's 'simple advocacy'? Sounds awfully like a personal attack to me. (It also sounds misspelled, and remarkably like what an indignant 15-year-old would say. But that's beside the point.)
posted by darukaru at 6:03 PM on May 11, 2001

By the way, PMG, if being on the 99.4% effective Pill isn't responsible sex, what is? (And no, saying 'the 100% effective abstinence' isn't a valid answer. Assuming people are going to have sex (which they are), and they have taken all reasonable precautions for birth control, they're perfectly responsible.)

(And oh yeah, PMG, please explain how the MeFi conservatives such as aaron, CRS, and davidmsc haven't been banned, even though they are far more adept at posing arguments than you are?)
posted by darukaru at 6:12 PM on May 11, 2001

So is Pat FreeSpeech/RightWinger?
posted by Doug at 9:17 PM on May 11, 2001

what does it matter what pat is? pat's stated his opinions (offensive as they may be) and has been summarily attacked -- and even hunted to other sites! what, are people going to go hassle him on /. now as well?

sure he may have an odd handle. it could be phallic, or it could be a legitimate name. you're going to make fun of him because of his name? please.

Sounds awfully like a personal attack to me. (It also sounds misspelled, and remarkably like what an indignant 15-year-old would say. But that's beside the point.)

pot. kettle. black.

I can't wait until my ova are declared persons under the law, so that I can drive in the carpool lane without guilt.

yes, that is a silly remark. count the chromosomes. i have a hard time believing that anyone will ever argue that a gamete is a person, no matter how rabidly pro-life.

no, wait, strike that. some pro-lifers are just insane.

but no more than the pro-choicers :P

saying 'the 100% effective abstinence' isn't a valid answer

why not? not that i'm advocating one lifestyle over another, but it's a lousy argument if you're going to say, "well, don't say that, it isn't valid!" without providing a solid argument to back that up.

A child has a right to have loving parents.

pfffffffft.

This isn't about the inconvenience of being pregnant; it's about the question of whether and when a fetus should be attributed the rights of a person. If you can't grasp this, you're never going to successfully defend abortion rights.

bingo.

pc/pl arguments always get out of hand because the sides tend to shout at cross purposes. pl argues for, well, life and recognition of personhood. pc argues for a "woman's right to choose what happens with her body." no clash.

here's a solution.

woman gets pregnant. woman doesn't want to be pregnant. woman goes to hospital and has whatever's occupying her womb removed from her womb. whatever's been removed is given the best medical care and all the support they need to survive.

if it survives, it's a person.

if it's not, it's ... uh ... not.

heh. as if that would ever fly.
posted by fuzzygeek at 10:38 PM on May 11, 2001

As you read this, there are over 6.3 billion people already alive on this planet. Despite the death rate, this number is increasing by one new life every 1.5 seconds worldwide. We need to straighten out all the laws that protect lives already on this planet. We should argue them and make life better for everyone already alive. The abortion argument is wasted breath in comparison.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:18 AM on May 12, 2001

Life is both precious and indiscriminate.

The law is notoriously unsuited to such things.

I decided years ago to stay out of threads like this.
posted by holgate at 4:22 AM on May 12, 2001

Fuzzygeek is onto something. Let's assume the fetus is a person... just for a moment. Why should the mother be -forced- to give up her bodily resources to enable her child's life? We don't let anyone else take over an individual's bodily resources, even if it means they'd die without them. Do we -force- fathers to donate kidneys if their (out of utero) kid needs one? What if the kid would die without the kidney and the father is the only match?

I assume even anti-choice advocates assume that both parents are equally culpable for the existence of the child?

This debate is about controlling women and their bodies. Pat Robertson's recent hypocritical stance on the issue in China exemplifies that perfectly.
posted by Medley at 4:24 AM on May 12, 2001

[fuzzygeek] wrote: woman goes to hospital and has whatever's occupying her womb removed from her womb. whatever's been removed is given the best medical care and all the support they need to survive.

Not realistic. An abortion is not comparable to natural birth or a cesarian section. The fetus is usually killed during the procedure. In preterm birth everything is focussed on survival of the infant. That's something completely different.
posted by nonharmful at 5:11 AM on May 12, 2001

fuzzygeek: yeah, I know I'm the pot. I was just trying to talk to the poor kid on a level he'd understand. I wouldn't have flung the mud if he hadn't been rolling in it. Doesn't excuse me, but sometimes you just *gotta*. ;)

And why is proclaiming abstinence as the solution invalid? Because it would take some kind of monumental, instant change to the minds and biology of the entire planet to get people to stop having sex. It may be a solution for some people, but it's not and shouldn't be the solution for everyone.
What *would* be a good idea for birth control, in my opinion? Mass distribution of the Pill. Free. To anyone in the world who wants it, on demand. (If a male equivalent is ever developed, it should be distributed as well.) Yes, it's not a perfect instant technological solution (there are still too many people out there who think it's immoral), but this is the first time in history where we can separate pleasurable activity from procreation. We aren't going to stamp out the pleasurable activity, but we can at least clamp down on the procreation.
Now, someone with an STD or HIV, yes, abstinence is the only sane solution for them. Their pleasurable activity directly harms their partner and those around them. And their actions can have a much farther-reaching effect than pregnancy, which (directly) affects only one person. Pregnancy doesn't spread, disease does. (And no, I don't consider pregnancy a disease or a tumor, like the militantly childfree do.)
posted by darukaru at 7:24 AM on May 12, 2001

It always seems that the people who are most against abortion are also those that call for abstinence as the only form of sex education in schools. This is misguided, abstinence education has shown, if anything, that it makes people less able to prevent pregenancy and therefor more likely to need an abortion, or have an unwanted pregnancy.

As someone who was adopted, I'm grateful that there are people who have put their babies up for adoption but the argument that there are plenty of parents willing to adopt babies usually only applies to white babies. After all, there are many Asian and African babies that get glossed over, not to mention children in foster care.

As for abstinence being 100% effective... If you're to believe the bible, it isn't. Mary never has sex and yet she conceived Jesus.
posted by drezdn at 7:40 AM on May 12, 2001