Murdered Abortion Doctor's Clinic Closes

You accuse me of taking something in "the most literal, context-less sense," and then proceed to offer the most literal, context-less counterargument imaginable. It is a purely rationalistic argument, which has nothing to do with the actual phenomena at issue. Please try to understand these biological phenomena INDUCTIVELY!

It's a little late for response, but for those who read it later: Ash Ryan said "reproduction and parasitism are entirely different phenomena. That’s practically common sense."

You are correct in the most literal, context-less sense. Parasites are generally of a different species. However, a fetus lives within the body of another entity and extracts its entire sustenance from said host. Those are the two fundamental characteristics of a parasite. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. QED

Ms. RK; student, 3L

Two Words: birth control

It's safe, reliable, relatively inexpensive & free in most cases if you can't afford it.

Jeff,

The issue is whether a fetus is an independent *biological organism* or not. This most basic kind of independence is a prerequisite for having rights. A fetus requires its mother's body for all the most basic functions of life - it does not breathe for itself, take in or process nutrition, etc. Once born, a child begins to perform all of these vital biological functions itself. Although a child depends on its parents for *other* things after it's born, it is a separate biological entity at this point.
Yes, a child is dependent on its parents after it is born *in a different sense*, but there is an essential difference between being dependent in the sense of not yet even being an independent biological entity, and being dependent in the sense that you have to ask Mom for gas money so you can go out on Friday night, ya know?

After birth the child's means of living is the labor, wealth, and time of the mother (and, presumably, the father). Why is direct physical dependence essentially different from indirect physical dependence, such that parental obligation only arises in the latter?

I don't know, I kind of liked the battery argument. It concretizes what it really means to claim that a fetus is a person with rights.

It's a definite clue that there is something wrong with fetus-rights if any attempt to seriously apply the principle to other legal situations results in inanity. (You could make a similar point, and I would, in the case of "animal rights")

Either a fetus is a person, or it's not -- and if it is a person, then you have to carry the idea through: if people can be tortfeasors, then so can the fetus :-)

Let me guess, Mr. Jennings -- you're a lawyer.

Mr. Jennings,

While I am politically pro-choice, and ethically pro-abortion (in the sense that I think anytime a woman wants an abortion---and sometimes even when she doesn't---she ought to get it), I have to say that the "parasite" argument is completely wrong-headed and won't convince anyone. Quite the opposite, in fact, since anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biology knows that reproduction and parasitism are entirely different phenomena. That's practically common sense. Just as it's practically common sense, if religion weren't continually muddying the waters with a lot of pseudo-arguments, that an unborn fetus and a physically independent human baby are entirely different things, at least from the perspective of their status as rights-holders.

I have to say, I find your "legal" arguments about fetuses committing battery rather weird, as well. It just doesn't apply, and is beside the point anyway.

These writers frighten me.

If we assume ad argumentum that a fetus is human, abortion is not only allowable, but the government has a positive obligation to perform such procedures on demand. If a fetus is human and the female bearing it wishes to remove it, i.e. withdraws her consent to it being inside her, then the fetus/human is committing a variety of crimes because it is inside another person's body without their consent. On the most basic level, the law prohibits one human from violating the personage of another without consent. Therefore, the fetus/human is committing an ongoing battery and any number of other violent physical attacks, varying according to the particular situation (sexual assault, mayhem and reckless endangerment come to mind for common abortion situations). Therefore, the police must remove the offending "human" because it is in the ongoing process of an unlawful physical attack and police have an obligation to remove such offenders (i.e. they have an obligation to stop an ongoing fight, or remove a trespasser); the police would literally be obligated to perform abortions. While they would perform the operation in a different manner to consistently follow the "fetus is human" argument, the end result would be the same.

However, a fetus does not become "human" until it is physically separated from the mother, i.e. at birth. Until then, it is physically a part of the female's body, with her blood, oxygen, and glucose being its sole means of living. It is a part of her body. So, to Mr. Casper, I would say that a human fetus fails your "body" requirement because it is literally, physically part of the mother's body and therefore does not have a body of it’s own.

To say that the female must continue to bear the child after she withdraws her consent is nothing but an incredibly disturbing version of slavery. It literally forces the female to be the means of the fetus's survival. It would force a woman to endure a parasite that literally sucks her lifeblood from her, taking the energy and oxygen from her own blood. Advocating that is as disgusting as the Chinese Communiststs' non-consensual organ donations.

Scottie, I humbly recommend that you read these two articles (especially the latter): http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/defining-life-the-moral-case-for-stem-...

http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/a-little-change-means-a-lot/

I think they answer many of the questions and concerns you raise.

The topic of abortion boils down to two fundamental questions: what are rights and who has them? Rights are moral concepts invented to protect the life of a man from others. Therefore, one must be a man to qualify for rights.

Existence as a man means two things: a body, able to act, and a mind, able to think. If one of these is absent, what you have is not a man. This is why sperm, eggs, zygotes, blastocysts, and any fetus/embryo that does not possess a functional mind has no rights whatsoever. It is not a human being.

That being said, when a functional body and mind exist together, I posit that it meets the standard of a human being and therefore possess a basic right to life. Abortion of this entity then becomes immoral: by the mother's own irresponsibility, she has allowed what could have been a human being to develop into an actual human being. Though she can give the child up for adoption, she is now responsible for its existence and must take care of it.

As far as retarded human beings are concerned, I posit their rights are contextual - to the degree of their retardation. A retarded person capable of choices and work certainly has a right to live and keep what he has earned. A person so retarded, however, they
are incapable of thought or making choices - a vegetable - does not possess the right to live. Only a man with a functional mind and body has rights; if he lacks one, he is not a man, and therefore has no rights. It is up to those who care for him whether or not he remains alive.

Do not confuse this view as being "pro-life" in the common sense of the term. Abortion is perfectly moral in many, many circumstances. Young couples struggling to achieve their independence, single mothers who are working for their future, rape victims, and women whose pregnancy could result in their physical harm are among the most powerful examples. Ultimately, the choice rests solely in the hands of the woman. "Pro-life" advocates are really "pro-sacrifice," the sacrifice of living human beings to non-living human beings.

I am a "pro-lifer" myself, and I do not base my support of it off of religious notions (although I myself am religious), but off of a "line in the sand" stand on human rights. To me, abortion is the same as slavery- it is one human being establishing complete control over another's life. A fetus is the property of their mother just as a slave was the property of their master.

I personally consider Dr. Tiller's actions to have been criminal- he publically admitted to performing abortions as late as the day before the mother's due date. The whole defense of the pro-choice movement hinges on the woman's right to control a biological event in which she is the only human involved. Every law in our country would deny Dr. Tiller the right to stab an infant with scissors, suction their brain matter out, then dispose of the body- however, because he did this while the infant was not yet born, it is a matter of debate.

(I take this issue rather personally because I have a close personal friend who recently graduated from high school with As and a few Bs, who was born at just 20 weeks- a stage of development which most pro-choicers would deem her to have been nothing more than a blob of tissue.)

I think that you are entirely incorrect in saying that it is impossible to be pro-life for reasons of civil rights- in fact, it is equally if not more valid to claim that it is impossible to support civil rights if you are pro-life. I think that all human beings, regardless of race, gender, or creed, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By arbitrarily drawing developmental lines over when these rights kick in, we risk condemning millions of American citizens to a genocide. I think the rights all men lay claim to should be respected at all stages in life, from the very old to the unborn. What's more, I feel that abortion, like the use of water boarding, sets a dangerous precedent. If it is justifiable to abort a fetus pre-nataly screened for Down's Syndrome (and over 91% of all fetuses that test positive are aborted), shouldn't it also be justifiable to abort a child with Down's Syndrome after it's born? What's the difference? Both are little more than lumps of biological tissue utterly dependent on their parents- and since you reject the idea of a sould, what differentiates a 9 month old baby from a 9 month old fetus? More over, what about those who fall into a vegetative state? Unable to care for themselves in any capacity, according to a pro-choice argument, it would be their caregivers decision over how long they should remain on life support, regardless of the victims convictions- after all, they no longer have a voice, and since their brain is dead their 'self' has died too. What about someone who becomes mentally handicapped as the result of illness or accident? Someone who becomes physically handicapped? Someone with political beliefs judged to be dangerous? The same arguments, belief, and scientific ideas that led to the advent of abortion, birth control, and the pro-choice movent also led to the Third Reich's Holocaust and Stalin's Purges.

The fact is that since the C-section became a safe alternative to traditional vaginal delivery, there is no medical reason to perform a late term abortion- in fact, due to the nature of the procedure, if the birth of the child would cause a complication in child birth harmful to the mother, a late term abortion is the last thing you would want, since it requires partially breeching the fetus before terminating it, effectively simulating birth. In exactly the same way you can see no defense of the pro-life movement, I can see no defense of the pro-choice movement. I look forward to hearing your response.