The Cellar - View Single Post

BigV · 02-15-2005, 10:30 PM

I posted this in another thread where I thought it was on topic but the argument roared on without me. The jumping off point was whether or not abortion is murder. It speaks to when personhood begins. I think it is appropriate here.

The core question
For a murder to happen, a person has to be killed. If the an abortion is defined as murder, and the victim as a person, then much, much more should change to be consistent with the stance that the rights of the fetus/embryo/zygote include more that just protection from murder.

I find the prospect that the abortion of a zygote, while certainly “alive”, should, could be considered “murder” as sensible as the prospect that a woman carrying this zygote should be counted as two people in any other circumstance. If she drinks, smokes, or does any other legal physical activities minors are prohibited from, is she breaking the law? If “it’s” a person, and murder-able, why--no--how can the discussion stop there? Which brings come to…
There question in the abortion debate:
"When does human personhood begin?"
A description of all viewpoints

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

This is a calm, reasoned, informed discussion of the facts and opinions on all sides. I do not know of a “bright line” that separates one side from the other. I expect that search for such a line will be futile and acrimonious, because such a line does not exist. It is a range, not a point. At either end of the spectrum, the decision is clear, but in the immortal words of Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, “What was that part in the middle?”. The middle (range) is the part where lots of stuff happens, including personhood. That’s where the answer lies, along a continuum. After all, we’re human beings, taking nine months to develop. For me the emphasis here is on the being, as an active verb, as well as a noun. We don’t talk of dead people as “human was’es” or of a pregnant woman’s baby as a “human will-be’s”.

In the Roe v Wade decision, dividing the pregnancy into trimesters seems a wise, Solomonic decision, the best possible resolution in a minefield of difficult choices. To consider the independent viability of the fetus in the first trimester to be approximately zero, the court concluded that the decision was a medical judgment to be decided by the woman and her physician. In the third trimester where viability is much more likely permitted the court to consider a fetus more like a person and entitled to more recognition as such.

The search for a single marker to define personhood, and from that murder, and medical procedure and everything in between is doomed.

Saying “I’m pregnant” doesn’t work in carpool lanes either, (except in California, predictably).

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20041122.html
__________________
Yours,

02-15-2005, 10:30 PM	#170
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	the core question is I posted this in another thread where I thought it was on topic but the argument roared on without me. The jumping off point was whether or not abortion is murder. It speaks to when personhood begins. I think it is appropriate here. The core question For a murder to happen, a person has to be killed. If the an abortion is defined as murder, and the victim as a person, then much, much more should change to be consistent with the stance that the rights of the fetus/embryo/zygote include more that just protection from murder. I find the prospect that the abortion of a zygote, while certainly “alive”, should, could be considered “murder” as sensible as the prospect that a woman carrying this zygote should be counted as two people in any other circumstance. If she drinks, smokes, or does any other legal physical activities minors are prohibited from, is she breaking the law? If “it’s” a person, and murder-able, why--no--how can the discussion stop there? Which brings come to… There question in the abortion debate: "When does human personhood begin?" A description of all viewpoints http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm This is a calm, reasoned, informed discussion of the facts and opinions on all sides. I do not know of a “bright line” that separates one side from the other. I expect that search for such a line will be futile and acrimonious, because such a line does not exist. It is a range, not a point. At either end of the spectrum, the decision is clear, but in the immortal words of Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, “What was that part in the middle?”. The middle (range) is the part where lots of stuff happens, including personhood. That’s where the answer lies, along a continuum. After all, we’re human beings, taking nine months to develop. For me the emphasis here is on the being, as an active verb, as well as a noun. We don’t talk of dead people as “human was’es” or of a pregnant woman’s baby as a “human will-be’s”. In the Roe v Wade decision, dividing the pregnancy into trimesters seems a wise, Solomonic decision, the best possible resolution in a minefield of difficult choices. To consider the independent viability of the fetus in the first trimester to be approximately zero, the court concluded that the decision was a medical judgment to be decided by the woman and her physician. In the third trimester where viability is much more likely permitted the court to consider a fetus more like a person and entitled to more recognition as such. The search for a single marker to define personhood, and from that murder, and medical procedure and everything in between is doomed. Saying “I’m pregnant” doesn’t work in carpool lanes either, (except in California, predictably). http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20041122.html __________________ Yours, __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.