
Originally Posted by
Jenny
Well, in Canada we have heretofore chosen to execute a "bright line" at the moment of birth. This has not been hugely contested for the obvious reasons you point out below - like, how many women get abortions for other than health reasons in the third trimester? How many doctors would perform them? It's not really a hot legal issue, in effect. But yes - any abortion for any reason. Any time - I admit, I'm a little more squeamish. Although I maintain it is not really a hot issue because it isn't done. But second trimester abortions? Yes, absolutely, any reason.
By the way - have you read the statute? Currently I'm only reading Carhart, but I was a little surprised at the actual content of the law. Like I said, it does make me wonder what the real purpose is.
I agree. Absolutely. I'm saying that it is a significant difference in fetal life and baby life. You could not kill a baby to save someone else. I'm not saying you should be able to - just pointing out a difference that you obviously intuitively relate to. Simply - there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, and I'm insisting that you do not conflate the two.
Okay - I'm pretty sure that, in the normal course of things, a 6 month fetus would not breathe. You mention a "record" - records are usually, by definition NOT what will normally happen. Obviously, there can be no way of knowing exactly when the fetus is viable, down to the day or minute. I mean, you can't even know the exact time of conception. A fetus that is 16 weeks early? Not likely to breathe. So as a medical reality it would be a consideration of what would happen in the normal course of things.
Serious ethical dilemmas, I agree. I think we can safely exclude wrong eye colour as a non-health issue, though. Webbed feet too - it seems largely aesthetic. Consider though, that if there was a way to determine eye colour in the first trimester, would it be less of a dilemma? What you're concerned about is designer babies. What I'm concerned about is bodily integrity. You really want to take a whole mess of issues regarding birth, conception and life and pack them down into a single issue; I would like you to deal with them separately, or at least as subsets as a greater issue. We call this "coherence"; it means, more or less, that trotting out incendiary material from an ancillary topic to bolster your argument is cheating.
I know. So?
No. It is not how I look at children in general. It is how I look at unwanted fetuses: a life form that cannot survive without its host and does not provide any benefit to the host and does provide detriment. I think they stop being parasites when they no longer require the host. Yes, a baby must be fed and changed and looked after - but ANYONE can do that. However, only one particular person is on the other end of an umbilical cord.
I don't really see your point? Like bodily integrity has an expiry date? You get it only if you make up your mind speedily?
My numbers for what? I don't even know what you are referring to. And I already told that "PBA" was a made up term that didn't actually mean anything. The only number I used was 10% - I got that from the Carhart decision. If it is significantly fewer than 10% - really that enhances my point, it doesn't detract from it.
So? What if a majority determined that women should no longer be allowed to speak in public? That was my entire point about majoritarianism; I mean, that's what started this discussion. Do you really think I'm just not going to notice you circling back around to it? Also - just btw - that means 35% did not. That's a lot of people to just silence on a personal rights issue.
Incidentally - 65% of Americans are absolutely free to respond squeamishly to the procedure. I don't blame them, it sounds gross and unpleasant, and I do too. That doesn't mean that a squeamish response makes for good law.
Bookmarks