So, I wanted to have a CALM RATIONAL discussion about a woman's right to abort. (or right to raise a child she will hate forever)

I would like to start the debate by stating that I believe a woman has a right to abort the baby all the way up to 3 months after birth. This baby, would be ruined for life if it was allowed to live. How many more messed up kids in foster care can the nation get? If we don't get rid of these babies now we'll end up regretting it later.

And by later I mean when the world has run our of resources and we all go SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE on the elderly

Abortion's always been an edgy subject, and quite frankly there's so many different factors that could justify whether an abortion would be appropriate or not. Going straight down to the basic foundation of this entire thing, I do believe that yes, a woman has the right to abort a fetus, but it's circumstance dependent on whether or not the abortion clinic should accept certain clients. (By the way, as I write this I cringe inside on how 'business like' this entire situation has become, since abortion has become a little business of its own. . .). Was the sex consensual? Is the mother and father in a position to support the child as he or she grows up? Is the father even THERE? There's alot to be taken into consideration, especially since the 21st Century is advancing as quickly as it is now. I'm by no means pro-abortion, but since everything nowadays have so many more complexities attached, it has become increasingly necessary.

In my mind, there are two valid arguments for abortion.

The first is that a fetus is not sentient, thus it is not a person. This holds true up until about week 24 at the earliest, after which babies gain the thalamo-cortical complex which gives us our consciousness. The fetus doesn't gain the right to life until then.

The second is that the mother should not be forced to carry a child. Think of the fetus as an adult person. This adult person must be physically hooked up to a woman. Said woman will be limited because of this, and nutrients are robbed from the woman's body to support this same-species parasite. Legally, said woman is not obligated to support this adult person, so it follows that she shouldn't for a fetus, either. This argument is valid to remove the fetus from the mother's body at any time (though not kill it; if you're a week away from birth, this argument holds that the baby can be removed but not killed).

Just because a woman wants to abort doesn't mean she's going to hate the child. Perhaps the woman simply doesn't feel ready? If so, it's likely that she'll still love the child, but simply be in a bit of financial struggle. Maternal instinct is pretty powerful; it's hard to hate a baby once you get a look at its fully-developed, cute little face. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a messed-up life over no life, as any healthy individual would.

Do you honestly believe that 3-month-old babies should be allowed to be killed, or was that a typo? Because supporting actual infanticide is an incredibly rare position.

This is a very unsettling topic for me only because of there are so many crucial factors in play that today are still not clearly defined.

For instance what is the legal definition of life: when does "life" of a multicellular organism, such as a human, begin? Now what is the legal definition of murder? If murder is bad, then would it be consistent to say that ending life after it begins is murder. So when does life begin?

Some would say life should begin when the brain of the fetus is developed enough to receive and respond to sensory input (like touch). But if that's the case, what is the condition of adult individuals who suffer accidents with cranial damage so severe that they are forever in a vegetative state? Are they still sentient? Are they not alive? Does sentience define life? What about organisms that do not have the neural capacity to attain self-awareness? Are they not alive?

The fetus is just one of many life stages. We normally don't think of a fetus as a legitimate stage of life in humans because it's appearance and means of nutritional intake (parasitism if you will) is so different from the rest of our living lives. However if you look at the diversity of organisms all around the world and look that life stages, it's really not that extraordinary.

Many juvenile amphibians (such as frogs and salamanders) have an aquatic larvae stage (a tadpole) which has a finned tail and gills to breathe underwater. However when they become adults they have four limbs for terrestrial locomotion and develop lungs to breathe air. Caterpillars are elongated insects that develop in a sessile stage (the cocoon), where their innards are being completely rewired to emerge into a flying butterfly.

There are plenty of organisms that have at least one parasitic stage which is essential to survival. In an extreme case there are parasitoid wasps that lays their eggs in other organisms that way their young hatch and eat the host (like a spider or a caterpillar) from the inside out.

Placental mammals, such as ourselves are actually one of the most successful groups of vertebrates in terms of occupying various niches because of the ability to "house" developing young wherever the mother pleases to go (whales would have never have evolved such specializations to an aquatic life if wasn't for our mode of reproduction. Imagine a 100ft blue whale trying to crawl onto land in attempt to lays eggs).

So yeah, all placental mammals have a parasitic stage, but is that point worth taking it out on the fetus? It's just one of many ways to produce offspring. All "parents" of all living organisms have to donate some of their energy and time to continue the species. Nothing new.

I'm still troubled by what to define the start of life. As for "rights" of the fetus. Well yeah, children don't have as many rights or privileges as an adult, but life is kind of assumed to be a fundamental right, no?

Just food for thought.

Life is irrelevant, sentience is. You don't need sentience for life, you don't need life for sentience, even. If LIFE is what made RIGHTS, then bacteria would have rights. As you said, life is a fundamental right, but only for those with sentience, with consciousness, with self-awareness, with empathy. Otherwise, killing bacteria would be murder.

By the way, no one has some sort of "duty" to continue the species. Yes, this parasitic stage is necessary to have a child. And if someone doesn't want a child, they have the right to remove the parasite.

Often when a person declares that they have some kind of right to something it can be fueled by emotion and premise. They believe that they have been given the freedom to choose and that this possibility to commit choice is somehow a right.


Webster's New World Dictionary says:

Right: ( adverb )

1. straight; directly. ( go right home )
2. properly; fittingly
3. completely
4. exactly ( right here )
5. according to the law, justice, etcetera

The Constitution of the United States of America says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

These are the opening remarks to which soldiers pledge their service in the branches of the Armed Forces and are the prelude to Amendment XIV ( 14th Amendment ) which states:

"Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Here is a summary of the primary words which provide for some of the most basic legal rights in the United States of America:




For my own opinion when I attempt to add the word abortion to that list...it does not fit. It is an opinion, a bias, for a person to say that a female has the right to commit the act of abortion. But it is not a provision which is enumerated for by law. The act of...interrupting the process which creates life is a choice. It is an option or consideration just as sexual intercourse is a possible act. There is not any national law, to my knowledge, which provides any person the right to commit sexual intercourse. For these reasons we can conclude that abortion, and birth, are opportunities in which a human consciousness may choose to act.

But they are not rights.

About all of the other...highly emotional material which super-charges most discussions regarding birth and abortion...I do not wish to comment. In my own view if a person does not want to have a child then they should not play at sexual activity.

Please have a nice day, whatever opinion you hold.

Sciamancer wrote:Life is irrelevant, sentience is. You don't need sentience for life, you don't need life for sentience, even. If LIFE is what made RIGHTS, then bacteria would have rights. As you said, life is a fundamental right, but only for those with sentience, with consciousness, with self-awareness, with empathy. Otherwise, killing bacteria would be murder.

By the way, no one has some sort of "duty" to continue the species. Yes, this parasitic stage is necessary to have a child. And if someone doesn't want a child, they have the right to remove the parasite.

At what point do you consider a person to become sentient? As soon as a baby has been delivered from the womb is it sentient? Does it have more of an aware of its life and its conscious than it did seconds before? I'm curious to hear your answer because this is an interesting side topic.

Jag wrote:

Sciamancer wrote:Life is irrelevant, sentience is. You don't need sentience for life, you don't need life for sentience, even. If LIFE is what made RIGHTS, then bacteria would have rights. As you said, life is a fundamental right, but only for those with sentience, with consciousness, with self-awareness, with empathy. Otherwise, killing bacteria would be murder.

By the way, no one has some sort of "duty" to continue the species. Yes, this parasitic stage is necessary to have a child. And if someone doesn't want a child, they have the right to remove the parasite.

At what point do you consider a person to become sentient? As soon as a baby has been delivered from the womb is it sentient? Does it have more of an aware of its life and its conscious than it did seconds before? I'm curious to hear your answer because this is an interesting side topic.

Such a thing is hard to define at a specific point, it is true. As I stated earlier, I think when sentience could be considered beginning at the earliest is when the part of the brain that scientists think causes sentience in humans- the Thalamo-Cortical Complex- develops at around week 24-28. Of course, this doesn't mean a woman shouldn't be allowed to get rid of the baby by then.

I dislike repeating myself much, so I'll quote my earlier post.

The second is that the mother should not be forced to carry a child. Think of the fetus as an adult person. This adult person must be physically hooked up to a woman. Said woman will be limited because of this, and nutrients are robbed from the woman's body to support this same-species parasite. Legally, said woman is not obligated to support this adult person, so it follows that she shouldn't for a fetus, either. This argument is valid to remove the fetus from the mother's body at any time (though not kill it; if you're a week away from birth, this argument holds that the baby can be removed but not killed).

This doesn't even take into account the fact that a 24-week-old fetus is much less sentient than the mother. Sentience is not a Boolean, true/false, yes/no answer. It is more of a spectrum.

Regarding your point about considering the fetus to be an adult, I think that's a leap in logic that I can't follow. The fact of the matter is that this child is not an adult. An adult can care for itself and support its own life. This is something that the fetus is unable to do. Even after a child is born and does achieve a high level of sentience, it is still a child that will be unable to feed itself and otherwise support its life without the support of adults willing to care for it.

I do appreciate the link. Added information and being able to provide sources that help us form opinions is the best way to have discussions like this because we're able to keep it academic, intellectual and intelligent.

The point of comparing the fetus to an adult was to simply, for a moment, take it only as it is: one creature sponging off another to survive. Sort of a thought experiment. To put it in more realistic terms...

Person A needs a bone marrow transplant or he will not survive. None of the marrow in the donor bank matches Person A closely enough to even have a tiny chance of working. Person B is shown to definitely have a nearly-perfect bone marrow match. In this way, Person A's survival depends on Person B's body. Yet, Person B is not legally obligated to donate bone marrow.

The side effects of bone marrow donation last for a few weeks at most, and so are practically nothing compared to the months of side-effects of pregnancy. My logic is that if a person is not obligated to undergo relatively minor discomfort to save the life of a fully-sentient person, then a person shouldn't be obligated to undergo relatively greater discomfort to save the life of a less-sentient fetus.

I hope that cleared something up, maybe? My point is that even in the case where "an adult can care for itself and support its own life" is false, someone is still not obligated to give up some of their body.

Okay, I see what you were doing now a little more clearly.

My logic is that if a person is not obligated to undergo relatively minor discomfort to save the life of a fully-sentient person, then a person shouldn't be obligated to undergo relatively greater discomfort to save the life of a less-sentient fetus.

I understand this argument, but I think the point to made here is "voice for the voiceless." An adult, albeit one suffering from a terminal illness, is still an adult with the ability to "defend" itself, being physically or legally. An unborn person can't got to an attorney and seek redress or action underneath the law or vote in elections to seek change in legislation or representation. With that regard, that person may need a great sense of protection sense they are unable to exert their rights (and I know that you disagree on the extension/possession of rights at this stage) than an adult does.

I am pleasantly shocked at the civility of this discussion. Props.

A civil discussion about abortion?!? With people actually disagreeing? How the heck did that happen? Anyway...

I could understand that concept, though I'd like to point out that the great majority of less-than-sentient beings don't have special protection under the law. Pigs, which are incredibly intelligent, are killed every day with little regard to even how much they suffer before and when they're killed. They can't protect themselves nor are they protected.

Now, sure, we eat pigs, but not fetuses. But we don't have to eat such a relatively intelligent animal, we do it because we want to, because it results in a tasty meal. In a similar fashion, aborting a fetus makes the mother's life more convenient. Pigs are considered smarter than dogs, and even smarter than 3-year-old children by some, and yet, the majority of people consider killing 3-year-old children to be quite evil.

It makes sense, in terms of evolutionary psychology. People want to protect the children of their own species because it helps further a species. People don't want to protect pigs because they're a food source, and don't help people do other things like dogs do. "We're genetically programmed to think this way, therefore you should do what we think," however, doesn't hold water as an argument. xD

That pig x fetus analogy really got me thinking, so kudos! Not many things keep me awake pondering at night. =P

This discussion's been great, but reading over all these wonderful responses you've all had, we've kind of strayed from a question that begs for more debate and analysis. That being the safe-care and rights of the mother, as a mother, herself. The way I see it as I've stated before, the circumstance in which the fetus comes into conception should play a vastly profound effect on whether or not an abortion should be justifiable. Sentient or not, it is the mother who will ultimately make the final decision.

linkster~ wrote:That pig x fetus analogy really got me thinking, so kudos! Not many things keep me awake pondering at night. =P

This discussion's been great, but reading over all these wonderful responses you've all had, we've kind of strayed from a question that begs for more debate and analysis. That being the safe-care and rights of the mother, as a mother, herself. The way I see it as I've stated before, the circumstance in which the fetus comes into conception should play a vastly profound effect on whether or not an abortion should be justifiable. Sentient or not, it is the mother who will ultimately make the final decision.

Thanks. It runs the risk of running off on a tangent about animal rights, but I find that comparison can be very effective. I've already touched a bit on my opinions about mother's rights, but I'll do an all-over summary.

First of all, I think that a woman always has a right to remove the fetus. If the fetus has not developed the brain enough to be considered even slightly sentient (roughly <24 weeks), then the mother can simply have it aborted as usual, killed. If it HAS developed the brain enough, however, it should be removed in a way that has a chance of the fetus surviving. Inducing early birth, C-section, whatever floats your boat. As it just so happens, week 24 is about when a fetus becomes viable, anyway. Assuming the mother doesn't want the baby, it would go up for adoption at this point.

However, if the mother's life is at risk, then it should be allowed to be removed in whatever way has the best chance of saving the mother's life, as the fully-sentient mother's life is more valuable than the semi-sentient fetus's. In all honesty, I don't think the matter of conception should be taken into account when it comes to abortion legality. Whether it was consensual, unprotected (and stupid) sex, protection failing, or rape, I think a woman should be able to always remove the fetus from her body.

Personally, AND I MEAN PERSONALLY! I can't kill living things unless my body needs me to. But even if my body needs me to, I couldn't bear to kill a living child. I would rather die in it's place because that's another life being let in the world. I could never deny another human being this personal beauty that I had the privilage to already see.

You see, at conception, the baby is a living organism. It might not be able to think for itself, but it already realizes that it's inside it's mother. At three weeks, the heartbeat is visible in some children. I understand that people are numb to these things but after all these things begin to occur, the child is ALIVE. It's breathing. It laughs. It cries. It loves. And abortion after birth is absolutely horrid. By then, the child is thinking. It realizes and even loves its mother and there is scientific evidence that it recognizes it's mother's voice. You have to understand that it's a human...and humans killing humans is murder.

I just think that there are other options. I mean, would you have been able to stand being obliviated? What if you never even had the opportunity to live? You only have ONE life. What if you weren't even given your chance?

Well, if you think about it, it's highly debatable with today's society on when you can consider 'living life' actually 'living life'. I mean, I completely agree with what you stand for, what gives us the right to take away a human beings chance to live? Even at the cost of say another?

You could say that you start living straight away from day one, but are you truly seeing life as your own? From ages 1 to all the way to maybe 20 a lot of people are still reliant on our parents to care for our needs. Whether it be feeding, shelter, finances, or something related. Maybe it's because that in my personal life, I'm at a point where I can see much of that rebellious freedom that I could reach out to that suddenly changes my idea of 'living life', but the stringent morality and guiding rules that my parents raised me on keeps my centered.

I'll make a brief scenario illustrating my points somewhat, since I got a little off topic :

A fourteen year old girl is raped, and the man responsible is quickly put into prison. A few weeks later, the girl's family finds out she is pregnant.

Understand, the girl is only 14 years old. Has she really seen life to it's fullest extent? There's an entirely new chapter that she has yet to see, the one where she'll be an independent, head-strong woman carving her own way in society. Where she'll be self-sufficient with finances, shelter, and transportation. Maybe find a special someone and start raising a family on her terms, when she sees herself ready for the responsibility.

You've probably heard said scenario before, or something akin to it, but I put it here anyways because it IS a realistic depiction of some real life situations. Anyways, I'd like to hear your guys' thoughts.

Thank you, Linkster for agreeing with me to some point. However, I was focusing majorly on mindlessly aborting a baby because "you don't want it". The rape scenario is a seperate circumstance.

As for that circumstance, I've seen it happen before. A friend of mine was raped at thirteen and even though her parents told her to abort, she decided to have the baby. She fell down the stairs and had a miscarriage. She felt horrible afterwards because she was looking foward into bringing the new life into the world.

As for NorthenSoul, I would like to point out that most human beings realize that a baby isn't a GERM.

And as for the baby realizing that it is inside it's mother at conception, it does. It knows how to live with her, how to be in the body that was made to support two or more lives. It realizes who it came from just by feeding off what the mother eats.

And yes, you are correct with the scientific evidence of the chicken and the heartbeat. However, I was referring to what a baby is capable of during its last few months in the womb. It does feel and think. I'm sorry I didn't emphasize that in my last arguement, I got kinda worked up with my mindset (for which I apologize). I suppose the abortion right depends on how you were raised and once more, personally, it was a major focus in my household and my upbringing that killing all living creatures is morally wrong.

And yes. Abortion after birth. There are women out there that lived through the pregnancy but find that the baby has special needs or they don't "like" the baby and thus they euthanize or smother it. Which I can't seem to find a reason to justify.

And I know all of you are going to positively kill me over this but why not just try abstaining until you were ready to have a baby?

I take my arguement standpoint not from scientific evidence but from morals. Do you think that killing a potential human is morally sound? Can you justify it not from science but looking through the simple point that it's a person. Not a fetus. A person.

I believe that no government has the right to extend a certain degree of control over human rights. There is a point in which a government (or other such institution) that provides for it's people becomes a government that rules it's people. If there is one thing a person should have, it should be his or her rights. In my opinion, saying that a woman had no right to abort would be an extension of attempted control over that persons life, and when extensions of control are founded on personal opinions, then it becomes wrong. We all have opinions, but for something as large as abortion, we should keep them to ourselves, because not one of us can speak for another. Therefore, should women be allowed to abort? Yes. Would I do it? Hopefully I'll never have to find out.