Abortion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Good grief people… It was just a simple statement. The fact is a fetus ACTS just like a parasite as I said. Is anyone here going to deny this? We know that’s clearly true. I never said a fetus is a parasite therefore we need to destroy them all… Geesh…

What I interpreted you as saying is this: Since a foetus acts like a parasite, the mother is justified in treating it like like a parasite if she wants to. Was that an incorrect interpretation or no?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

A lot of people here act like pregnancy is the best thing that could happen to you. In fact its not. Its extremely dangerous. Up until relatively recently (late 18th century?) getting pregnant meant you had a good chance of dieing from complications somewhere between inception and birth (usually around birth). So my statement about the fetus being like a parasite was in response to Liefs ridiculous notion of the mother being only a “biological life support mechanism”

You forget that I said that from the baby's perspective, the mother is merely a biological life support mechanism. I have never said being pregnant is the best thing that can happen to anyone, nor do I believe that. I am fully aware that it is extremely dangerous in many parts of the world still. To me, this involves the ethical question: Is it ethical to kill an innocent person to save yourself?

To me, the answer to that also is clearly no.

And here, I know, you'll probably respond with the issues of the development of the foetus, which I'd respond to again with both pointing out how the reasoning justifies mysoginists, Nazis and racists, and also pointing out the arbitrariness of drawing any line that involves exterminating innocent human life.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

which is just as absurd a notion as the fetus actually BEING a parasite and im quite delighted there was so much anguish over the parasite comment since that shows quite clearly there is a double standard involved here: Its morally unacceptable to harm a fetus even up to the point of being a ball of cells… but its perfectly ok to treat the mother as a birthing machine with no rights to determine what is best for HER and HER health and situation no matter how she got pregnant, how perilous her particular situation is and no matter how undeveloped the fetus is. Utterly ridiculous…

As regards your "ball of cells" point, I'd like to mention that in the first trimester, drawing any line is highly arbitrary. We can't tell when a human life should be considered a person in there and when not. It's a constantly and rapidly changing creature.

As regards your point about the mother, I'd like to point out that again you're essentially saying it's ethical to kill someone to preserve someone else's financial or social condition. Except that sometimes the mother might die. But in these much more rare situations (in developed countries), the situation is this: Is it ethical to kill one innocent person to save another?

The answer is that it is not, and I daresay you'd certainly agree with me if we were talking about adults rather than foetuses.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If you believe that we as humans can never decide when termination of life is ok then you better drop your gung ho support for Rumsfeld and the war in Iraq Lief. Not to mention any kind of armed conflict or situation that can result in the death of another human. And you better quickly become a hard core vegan and never contribute to the death of any other organism on this planet or elsewhere or else you are in violation of your own logic here which is that we have no right to draw the lines. So better draw no lines just to be safe.

There is a very, very big difference between war and abortion. With abortion, you are intentionally killing innocent life. With war, we try our utmost to avoid that. We know that some innocent people will die, just as we know our doctors will accidentally kill some people in their profession and our justice system will accidentally condemn some people who are innocent. Yet these systems are necessary, and by developing them we seek to keep innocent people from suffering or dying. That is their entire purpose. The purpose of war is the same, to keep innocent people (us) from suffering and dying, even though, just as with the other forementioned institutions, we know that accidents will occur. But the key words here are "accident" and "innocent." With war, we seek to prevent the innocent from being destroyed, knowing all the same that we will accidentally kill some in the course of our endeavors. With abortion, we seek to kill the innocent rather than accidentally killing them, and this is a completely different thing.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Or does your point of view stem directly from a certain religious philosophy which says oh its ok to do this but you cant do that? If that’s the case then lose the line drawing argument.

I say that there is an obvious ethical difference between accidentally killing someone who's innocent and purposely doing it. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So then are you saying its ok before then? Nevermind your argument here doesn’t hold water because development of “organs” says nothing about the state of the organism in question.

Uh . . . yes it does. It shows that we are talking about a physically and mentally developed human, and that is part of the "state of the organism in question."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But if this is the argument you are going to make then you are saying somewhere between inception and that point its ok to abort. And I know you believe its not ok even one moment after inception (correct me if im wrong but Im pretty sure Ive heard you say that more then once). So really much of our argument is disingenuous. Because you believe its morally wrong to abort ANY human life form no matter how developed (or non developed) it is. So why even enter into the developmental line of arguing in regards to abortion exactly?

We cannot know when someone should be considered a person, and any lines we draw are arbitrary. A person in the womb is in a constant and fluid state of development. My point about development is that by the time all its organs are developed, the foetus obviously is developed, but up to that point, we don't know at what point it is underdeveloped enough to be killed. And the whole thing of saying that a human can be underdeveloped enough to be killed has some very, very alarming implications.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Again this is just a ridiculous argument to me. You do realize that there were jews IN the SS itself and certainly in all levels of the nazi regime. Why? Because some jews don’t look jewish. And if you have blonde hair and blue eyes well Hitler’s “scientific” measurements couldn’t detect you. Instead you fit right in and didn’t stick out like say a 3 week old fetus would… The very idea of trying to compare these things…

Hitler wasn't going to be able to perform tests on every person in Germany.

But this relates to what I said before again. You are simply disagreeing with Hitler's evidence, but you agree with him that you can kill people based on your perception of their biology (based on your evidence) rather than based on their actions.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You cannot determine religion based on scientific measurements quite clearly. But you can certainly look at development of the mind and body

So Hitler, the mysoginists and the racists believed.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

AND weigh the fact that there is a HOST involved when deciding on something as serious as an abortion…

Hitler, mysoginists and racists look on society as the host.

But there also is the ethical issue of whether we're justified in killing one innocent person to save another.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That’s a laugh. We kill as we see fit and as we can get away with it (both externally and internally). It’s the nature of our species.

I know that this is the way that many wars are started and engaged in. These are not ethical wars, and we should oppose them. Just as we should oppose abortion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which is irrelevant to the argument regarding abortions of course. Its like saying just because some people use guns to kill others that we shouldn’t allow guns to exist at all…

This is the kind of people that have judged people based on their biology rather than their actions. Without fail, people who do this become responsible for crimes against humanity. And by accepting their fundamental principle as valid as you now do, you're justifying them. For if they also are allowed to judge people based on their biology rather than their actions, and they (like you) should use the best evidence available to them and can kill based on their best perception of others' biology, then they are justified. Only from our current position, we think their "evidence" was critically flawed. Thus they were wrong because their evidence was wrong, but not because their fundamental principle was wrong, that we can kill based on people's biology rather than only their actions.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Happens every day in MUCH worse ways Lief.

I'll repeat my question, since you've just ignored it. Do you think you are justified in killing someone off in order to avoid poverty?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why aren’t you out there shouting about that?

I do. Uganda and Darfur, for instance. I set up the thread here on that subject, and the one on Christianity's past atrocities.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And by the way, do you think you are justified in having a woman die to avoid abortion?

Let's replace the word "having" with the word "letting". In that case, my answer is yes. I don't believe that we are justified in killing one innocent person to save another. Do you?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, I find it ironic that life is so sacred inside the womb, but once you're born you're on your own. Yup, doesn't matter if the mother would have had an abortion because of a lack of physical and emotional resources to support a child, as long as she has the child, that's all the matters.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'd rather be brought up in poverty than killed before even seeing the light of day.

[The Gaffer]

Well, the debate centres around our definition of personhood. I don't think it's useful to make Hitler comparisons; everyone draws the line at some biological point or other.

Lief, I think you are to be congratulated on a self-consistent position. If I read you correctly, you would not support abortion even in cases where the mother's health was at risk. I think that this is the logical conclusion of a "pro-life" perspective.

I find it interesting that many "pro-lifers" do NOT support this view however. What this says to me is that even though they'd like to believe that the unborn foetus is an equal person, in reality they don't. I think that is the case for most people: we know, deep down, that an unborn baby is not the same as a born one.

So the question of defining personhood is paramount. For me, that's an ongoing process with key stages/leaps forward rather than a dichotomous dividing line.

BTW, I find abortion absolutely appalling, particularly second trimester onwards and particularly partial birth abortion. My view is that we should take a conservative view of the above process (i.e. aim for 12 weeks or less), but that we absolutely must recognise that the mother is more than just a biological life support machine.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, the debate centres around our definition of personhood. I don't think it's useful to make Hitler comparisons; everyone draws the line at some biological point or other.

Not within the human race. Merely between humans and other species.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, I think you are to be congratulated on a self-consistent position. If I read you correctly, you would not support abortion even in cases where the mother's health was at risk. I think that this is the logical conclusion of a "pro-life" perspective.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I find it interesting that many "pro-lifers" do NOT support this view however. What this says to me is that even though they'd like to believe that the unborn foetus is an equal person, in reality they don't. I think that is the case for most people: we know, deep down, that an unborn baby is not the same as a born one.

That's the way they're treating the child anyway, when they do that. I personally think it's mainly that they care more about the mother than about the child.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So the question of defining personhood is paramount. For me, that's an ongoing process with key stages/leaps forward rather than a dichotomous dividing line.

BTW, I find abortion absolutely appalling, particularly second trimester onwards and particularly partial birth abortion. My view is that we should take a conservative view of the above process (i.e. aim for 12 weeks or less), but that we absolutely must recognise that the mother is more than just a biological life support machine.

Okay, so you and I are in agreement as to when the child's life should most obviously not be taken. And I agree with you that a person's body develops in an ongoing process without one dividing line. That's why any line we set for when a person can be judged based on biology is artificial. The person develops fluidly, and we can't know when the person is undeveloped enough that it can be ethically killed.

And furthermore, abortion is all based on the assumption that you can kill someone based on your perception of the state of their biology. Do we want that accepted as a valid tenent of future laws? Part of my point as regards Hitler and others is that they came to conclusions based upon the same assumption.

You yourself have said that abortion is utterly appalling for these later ages, and the number of children who have been killed this way are in the tens of millions at least.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not within the human race. Merely between humans and other species.

Just to clear something up: I meant that we all draw a biological dividing line between being a person and not being a person. No-one here believes that it is OK to kill people for convenience.

For you, if I understand you correctly, that dividing line is conception; for others it might be implantation; for others it is 12 weeks, or maybe 24; or maybe for some, like me, it's a drawn-out process, rather than a dividing line, culminating at birth. However you see it, it is a biological definition which is informed and framed by medical knowledge.

Lief, do you agree with my assertion that the majority of pro-lifers do not have a self-consistent argument (e.g. by allowing abortion on medical grounds where the baby's life is sacrified to save the mother)?

The other consequence of the pro-life position which is unacceptable to the majority is, I feel, how it reduces women to the role of vessels. That is something which, by and large, the pro-life argument gets wholly wrong.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, I find it ironic that life is so sacred inside the womb, but once you're born you're on your own. Yup, doesn't matter if the mother would have had an abortion because of a lack of physical and emotional resources to support a child, as long as she has the child, that's all the matters.

Just turning it around on ya buddy.

Also, who the heck holes is Ginsburg, and why does he/she want to lower the age of consent to 12? On a related note, what does that have to do with abortion?

Who said anything about on your own? In this day and age life isn't as hard, compared with what it used to be...

And btw Nurv, mothers can put the child up for adoption.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the Supreme Court Injustice that Bill appointed. She's viciously pro-abortion, is strongly for lowering the age of consent, legalizing prostitution (boy, is she trying to sell all the girls into slavery or WHAT?!)...all round good liberal.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, the debate centres around our definition of personhood.

*snip*

So the question of defining personhood is paramount. For me, that's an ongoing process with key stages/leaps forward rather than a dichotomous dividing line.

In case my pathetic pleas haven't gotten the idea across yet, I agree.

[hectorberlioz]

If being born is personhood, then how do you explain this: Is a child just about to be born, radically different from one just newly born?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The other consequence of the pro-life position which is unacceptable to the majority is, I feel, how it reduces women to the role of vessels. That is something which, by and large, the pro-life argument gets wholly wrong.

Well, they are vessals, in a way; during pregnancy...nobody believes of course, that that is what a woman is...

I think both sides read a radical agenda in the other side: Pro-Choicers think that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies, Pro-Lifers envision pro-choicers wanting to kill newly born babies as well... it gets dramatic.

[The Gaffer]

So the vessel thing is an analogy, then.

On your first question: some rather radical differences pre- and post-birth are feeding and breathing. Plus, the baby has had her head squeezed out of a 10cm opening and survived it. It is a risky endeavour (thanks to us walking on our hind legs: ultimate proof that God is a man perhaps )

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So the vessel thing is an analogy, then.

On your first question: some rather radical differences pre- and post-birth are feeding and breathing. Plus, the baby has had her head squeezed out of a 10cm opening and survived it. It is a risky endeavour (thanks to us walking on our hind legs: ultimate proof that God is a man perhaps )

So being on life support makes a person a non-person...round goes the merry-go-round

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just to clear something up: I meant that we all draw a biological dividing line between being a person and not being a person. No-one here believes that it is OK to kill people for convenience.

I'd like to hear IR say that, because when I mentioned the morality issue to him, he answered that it's human nature to kill for convenience.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

For you, if I understand you correctly, that dividing line is conception; for others it might be implantation; for others it is 12 weeks, or maybe 24; or maybe for some, like me, it's a drawn-out process, rather than a dividing line, culminating at birth. However you see it, it is a biological definition which is informed and framed by medical knowledge.

Okay, I understand what you're saying now.

I disagree that the "culmination" is at birth, though. After birth, the child still goes through a further period of rapid growth. Children still have body parts that have yet to more fully develop and have yet to change. Their muscles are weak, not having gotten rigid yet as they do in later years. Their bodies are fragile and helpless.

Perhaps at the end of adolescence the "culmination" of growth occurs. For when people are adults, they aren't going to become more physically advanced.

It is clear, of course, that this dividing line is still very fuzzy. People of very young ages can gain great mental maturity, and some people of many years in age never end up reaching mental maturity.

Any dividing line you can draw will be very arbitrary. Growth is a fluid and constant process. Humans just can't know when a valid point to draw a line is.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, do you agree with my assertion that the majority of pro-lifers do not have a self-consistent argument (e.g. by allowing abortion on medical grounds where the baby's life is sacrified to save the mother)?

No, I don't think I can agree on this, for I don't know what the majority of other pro-life folk believe on that issue.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The other consequence of the pro-life position which is unacceptable to the majority is, I feel, how it reduces women to the role of vessels. That is something which, by and large, the pro-life argument gets wholly wrong.

Women are vessels, but that is not all they are. Their bodies do function as biological life support systems, but that is only a piece of what they do and it definitely does not define who they are. Women have this biological role, but it is very wrong to look on that as the only role they have. To say the views of those who are pro-life reduce women to being only vessels is terribly inaccurate.

I'd say one of the roles women have is that of a caretaker who has a responsibility to look after the child in their charge both before and after birth. My mother, who has born five children and miscarried thrice, actually pointed out to me that responsibility is a key word that's been left out of the discussion. My mother actually has painted a charming portrait of two of the children she lost, portraying them as they might have been had they lived. That is not an argument or part of one; I'm just mentioning it .

In my mother's view, if two people have sex and create a child, it is the parents' responsibility to look after it (and of course, if one person shirks the responsibility, that doesn't justify the other person doing the same).

[The Gaffer]

I totally agree with that last part, for sure. Tis one of the reasons I think that the moral opprobrium which is heaped on single mothers (in the UK, and, I suspect, in the US and elsewhere) is truly disgusting. These women need help, not abuse.

OK, I feel we've reached some sort of understanding, and while we disagree at least we have mutual respect. I appreciate your candour.

One last question, though, on the issue of women's role, and it ties in with the flawed analogy of the "vessel". Setting aside the spiritual and psychological dimension, their biological relation is so intimate and complex that we still don't yet understand how it works. How does the mother's body "know" that it is time to give birth? Why do miscarriages happen? The placenta, technically part of the baby but sloughed off at birth, regulates both the baby's AND the mother's bodies throughout pregnancy by secreting various hormones. Even after they are born, there is a homeostatic connection: e.g. babies suckle voraciously in advance of having a growth spurt in order to stimulate the mother's milk supply to increase just when the baby needs more.

Put simply, they start off as (more or less) one, they end up as (more or less) two. The "vessel"/"life support" concept is wholly inadequate.

So anyway, I think that by and large most people accept that, even "pro-lifers". I have rarely seen a pro-lifer argue that the unborn child has exactly equal rights as the mother. Hence the question in my mind: do (these) pro-lifers REALLY believe what they claim to believe, i.e. that the foetus is a whole and actual person?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I totally agree with that last part, for sure. Tis one of the reasons I think that the moral opprobrium which is heaped on single mothers (in the UK, and, I suspect, in the US and elsewhere) is truly disgusting. These women need help, not abuse.

OK, I feel we've reached some sort of understanding, and while we disagree at least we have mutual respect. I appreciate your candour.

One last question, though, on the issue of women's role, and it ties in with the flawed analogy of the "vessel". Setting aside the spiritual and psychological dimension, their biological relation is so intimate and complex that we still don't yet understand how it works. How does the mother's body "know" that it is time to give birth? Why do miscarriages happen? The placenta, technically part of the baby but sloughed off at birth, regulates both the baby's AND the mother's bodies throughout pregnancy by secreting various hormones. Even after they are born, there is a homeostatic connection: e.g. babies suckle voraciously in advance of having a growth spurt in order to stimulate the mother's milk supply to increase just when the baby needs more.

Put simply, they start off as (more or less) one, they end up as (more or less) two. The "vessel"/"life support" concept is wholly inadequate.

So anyway, I think that by and large most people accept that, even "pro-lifers". I have rarely seen a pro-lifer argue that the unborn child has exactly equal rights as the mother. Hence the question in my mind: do (these) pro-lifers REALLY believe what they claim to believe, i.e. that the foetus is a whole and actual person?

I think that last question is partly answered by your paragraph on the connection of child and mother...just my two cents

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

1) Why not?

Why not which? Why do I not think its morally acceptable to have an abortion for whatever reason? Because that’s how I feel. It’s the level of moral behavior I choose to apply to myself. That doesn’t mean Im going to strive to stop women from having abortions because of a reason I may find distasteful. For me the argument is about development not reasons. You cant police reasons when it comes to abortion. You can use science to police development.

2) When is it?

When is what?

The point is not whether it can feel pain, etc. The point is that, at the absolute minimum, it might be a human person.

That doesn’t mean anything to me. “human person” is a useless term to me in this discussion. I don’t see that as relevant much to your disgust no doubt. To me the whole thing is about balancing and ALLOWING the choice of the better of two evils. If we outlaw abortion we take away what may be (unfortunately) the better choice of two horrible choices. We cant allow that.

Because (mere) animals and humans are apples and oranges. Both mere animals and humans are animals, just as apples and oranges are both fruits. But they are very different in other respects.

Not to me. To me killing a fly and killing a dog are vastly different things. They are both animals but there are enormous differences biologically and mentally between the dog and the fly. Same with a 3 week old fetus and a 2 year old.

Read above. I am not arguing from feeling, sentience, or consciousness. I am concerned with personhood.

Well Im not. Again it doesn’t mean anything to me. Everyone determines it in their own biased way.

Don't just sit there and put false words in my mouth; show me where I said it is derived from any of the above abilities. Where did I say that?

You were defending LIEF saying it you rube. Next time don’t make an argument for to defend someone elses stand then. Its bad enough I have to reply to both you guys in largely the same way. My posts become quite redundant when you guys are both arguing with me. Admittedly with some small but key differences though.

You know, the etymology is important, and does tell you a lot. What I provided was an etymologically-derived definition of 'organism'.

It was also irrelevant to what I said.

It's not a question of some organs. It's a matter of all major organs.

Wait so are you arguing the organ theory here then?

Irrelevant.

The host is irrelevant in any decision regarding abortion?

He is merely trying to make an argument that others can agree with.

But to him ultimately it doesn’t MATTER so making this argument from my perspective makes him look disingenuous and just trying to win the argument by any means necessary rather then engaging in a genuine discussion about development and when its ok to do certain things.

Can you prove that? Not just provide examples, but prove it?

Can I prove that mercy can be a benefit to us without providing an example? Can you do a back flip with one leg tied to a tree? Probably but why should I put you at such a disadvantage exactly if I genuinely want to see you do a back flip…

Ok… biologically if I show a merciful act to another organism (theres that word again ) that may in turn cause that other organism to survive to show mercy back to me or to my loved ones (gene carriers). And THAT’S a benefit. Furthermore, the act of showing mercy in a species that’s highly social reinforces the concept within the culture and species so that it is more likely to reappear in that same culture and species. This HAS been proven many times in anthropological and sociological studies. And because of that my act of ‘mercy’ could in the end stand to benefit me greatly. And/or at least my genes.

But if that is true, mercy is non-existent; it's a selfless thing. You may have something that looks merciful if done for benefit, but it isn't.

Mercy is mercy. Its just a word to describe something.

By this do you mean to indicate that our species sometimes shows mercy when it's not a benefit, or that our species sometimes does not show mercy when it is?

Well both are true. But my point was that our genes allow for mercy to be a human expression. Period. Don’t read too deep in it. Im NOT saying (and this is what I was carefully trying to point out) that mercy is only shown because it benefits us directly. Mercy is shown because it CAN be a benefit. It could also be a death sentence at any given time its performed (as can hunting or mating). BUT in the long run biologically it has become a beneficial mode of behavior.

See above. Also, can you provide examples? I know there are some, but I'd like to see specifics.

Certainly. Cleaner birds for alligators and crocodiles and hippos comes to mind. Wrasses for sharks and eels. Extremely dangerous animals allow small animals to go in their mouths and never eat them or hurt them. How merciful! Now we know the reason they do this. Its because cleaning their mouths and nostrils etc of things that could hurt them or cause diseases is to their benefit but do the alligators know this? Its clearly a display of ‘mercy’ by definition I think. And there are many other examples in the animal kingdom. Displays of mercy and compassion have been observed in bonobos and chimps. But I gotta run…

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I totally agree with that last part, for sure. Tis one of the reasons I think that the moral opprobrium which is heaped on single mothers (in the UK, and, I suspect, in the US and elsewhere) is truly disgusting. These women need help, not abuse.

Definitely agreed. I very much respect women who attempt to raise their child rather than taking the easy way out.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

OK, I feel we've reached some sort of understanding, and while we disagree at least we have mutual respect. I appreciate your candour.

I certainly respect you as well.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

One last question, though, on the issue of women's role, and it ties in with the flawed analogy of the "vessel". Setting aside the spiritual and psychological dimension, their biological relation is so intimate and complex that we still don't yet understand how it works. How does the mother's body "know" that it is time to give birth? Why do miscarriages happen? The placenta, technically part of the baby but sloughed off at birth, regulates both the baby's AND the mother's bodies throughout pregnancy by secreting various hormones. Even after they are born, there is a homeostatic connection: e.g. babies suckle voraciously in advance of having a growth spurt in order to stimulate the mother's milk supply to increase just when the baby needs more.

Put simply, they start off as (more or less) one, they end up as (more or less) two. The "vessel"/"life support" concept is wholly inadequate.

I'll respond to this with a personal story.

One of my brothers, whose name is Michel, died in the womb because the umbilical cord got tangled around his neck and he strangled. However, before he died, Michel actually reached up with his little hands to the umbilical cord and tried to free himself. He tried to push the cord away from his neck to survive but wasn't strong enough, so he died at twenty-two or twenty-three weeks old.

Michel's action was not determined by my mother. She didn't have control over his mind and couldn't determine his thoughts. It was his own will to live that prompted his resistance to the snare that ended up cutting him off.

The mother does not control the thoughts or the body of the person in her womb. The child's mind controls his or her own body. The child is him or herself, and not the mother's self. The biological life support mechanism that connects the child to the mother connects two different people.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So anyway, I think that by and large most people accept that, even "pro-lifers". I have rarely seen a pro-lifer argue that the unborn child has exactly equal rights as the mother. Hence the question in my mind: do (these) pro-lifers REALLY believe what they claim to believe, i.e. that the foetus is a whole and actual person?

I don't have much of a response for that. I don't know whether most pro-lifers think that or not, but when they do argue that, it looks inconsistent to me too.

Some of them might not have thought the logic through sufficiently. Some of them might be compromising with modern society. Some of them might feel a personal bias in favor of the mother, because they know her and they don't know the child. But in my view, you're right that they are treating the child like a second-class person, or not a person at all.

[The Gaffer]

Sorry to hear that, it's a very moving story, but not so rare.

I have been married twice, and had three miscarriages and two live births. It's a dodgy business.

[Lief Erikson]

Indeed.

Tell me, do you agree with my point that the mother doesn't control the child, but that the two act in ways independent of the other's will?

And if yes, then are they not individuals distinct from one another? The child controls its body through its mind, after a certain stage, but the mother never controls either the child's mind or body. Her thoughts are different from its thoughts, and they have two different kinds of experience and wholly different feelings at different times. Doesn't this make them two distinct individuals to you?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, I think you are to be congratulated on a self-consistent position. If I read you correctly, you would not support abortion even in cases where the mother's health was at risk. I think that this is the logical conclusion of a "pro-life" perspective.

I don't see how that's "logical" ... (see next section)

I find it interesting that many "pro-lifers" do NOT support this view however. What this says to me is that even though they'd like to believe that the unborn foetus is an equal person, in reality they don't. I think that is the case for most people: we know, deep down, that an unborn baby is not the same as a born one.

... I think the mother's health issue boils down to this: if there's two people in the path of a car and you can only reach one, and one has terminal cancer and one is healthy, do you decline to save either one because they're both people and you don't want to show preference, or do you make an extremely difficult decision and save one, probably the one that can live?

If the mother's health is an issue and the baby is viable, then doctors try to save both. If the baby isn't viable, then I think it falls into the "two people in the path of a car" category.

...we absolutely must recognise that the mother is more than just a biological life support machine.

Definitely! I"m very pro-choice - and the choice that a woman has is this: will I choose to take on the responsibilities of having sex, knowing that sex can produce a baby which I (and the father) will be morally responsible for?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gaffer

The other consequence of the pro-life position which is unacceptable to the majority is, I feel, how it reduces women to the role of vessels.

And I feel that the pro-choice position reduces women to people who can't figure out that they can get pregnant by having sex!