I just posted this on Blogmore:
Ok, Beryl, I had to read your post #142 over a few times to figure out that perhaps only the top part of it was specifically addressed to me.
That “mosquito thing” really threw me, because I didn’t remember saying anything of the kind. But then I found it in one of DL Emerick’s posts, so ok, I get your point.
Sometimes these threads get really confusing and frustrating. You have to sort through so many tangent posts to follow the course of a conversation. I get exhausted trying to knit it all together sometimes, and also distracted by people who think the way to have an intelligent conversation is to throw idiotic, off topic, hysterical stink bombs.
Weary as I am of this debate, I do have a response to your request, and will deliver it as my final installment to this long thread.
You ask:
“Can pro-choicers defend abortion without the “its only a ball of tissue” argument backing up their whole house of cards? Anyone care to try?”
The answer for me is, yes I can.
First, I’ll ask if you have fully digested and are basically in agreement with the article I posted above?
“When does Life Begin”If so, you will see that science and philosophy alone are not in full agreement with the idea that a human person is present at the monent of fertilization, nor for that matter are they in agreement as to when precisely that moment occurs.
Personhood is a developmental procees that takes time, not an instaneous point in time.
The range of time in which a zygote develops into a person varies with the scientific view you hold, and yes there are arguments on both sides of each view.
Even so, let’s recap, these views, and their corresponding time frames are as follows:
Metabolic view = 20-22 hours.
Genetic view = 12-24 hours.
Embroyological View = 12 days.
Neurological view 24-27 weeks.
Ecological/Technological view = viability or 25 weeks (with artificial life support).
My personal opinion, is that the Neurological and Ecological/Technological view make the most sense because they use the same medical measurements to determine life doctors do to determine death – the presence of a coherent nervous system complete with a thalmus in the brain capable of producing the type of brain waves that indicate characterictc human brain activity (i.e. rational thought, versus random neurological reflex activity) and lungs that can breathe air.
Many people use “living wills” instruct doctors to pull the plug on them if they reach this condition. Many use the words “I don’t want to just lie there in a vegitative state.” Very few argue that this is murder or suicide.
Ok. so much for that part of the overview. Let’s move on.
Certainly the intrusion of unwanted male genetic material via rape or incest is enough for a woman to want to be rid of an unwanted zygote, and this would be consistent with the protection from these crimes that she enjoys under existing law.
If it is illegal for a man to rape a woman or to have sex with his daughter, presumably these laws are there to protect society from the undesireable consequences of those actions, pregnancy being one of them. Most societies have taboos agains incest to prevent the long range damage to society due to inbreeding.
Rape victims need continued legal protection from the consequences their assailant has foisted upon her. Even Bill Napoli, in his very small way, admits to this being only just and fair, although his idea of there being such a thing as a “simple rape” baffles the mind.
Now, there is the health of the mother. Even HB1215 allows for abortions if the life of the fetus threatens the life of the mother, so let’s take that as a given starting point and look backwards into the general health of both the mother and the fetus.
I believe women should be allowed to choose whether they wish to carry a child to term if her physiology is such that pregnancy and childbirth will severly endanger her health. Further, I believe she should be able to decide whether she wishes to give birth to an obviously deformed or otherwised handicapped child. I’m thinking of Huntington’s disease, Down’s Syndrome, FASDs etc. Those are private decisions, I believe, not something we want to legislate.
And finally, there is the notion of volition. We should be able to decide whether we want to reproduce or not, depending on our life circumstances.
A woman who is taking birth control to avoid becoming precgnant should not be penalized because existing birth control methods are not 100% effective.
If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant and bear a child I don’t think her society and it’s legal system should force her to do so. I do believe that she should be obliged to make her decision promptly, however. The earlier the better, as far as I’m concerned, up to the end of the 2nd trimester when indeed, there is undeniably a lot more at stake than there is at the “moment of conception” (whenever that is).
So have at it Beryl, there’s my answer.
