Does an unborn child have more rights than the woman carrying it?

Define “unborn child”. Blastocyst? Embryo? Fetus? Potentially viable extra-utero?

Therein lies the root of the Q for so many.

I say that it’s NOT my place to determine what others do with their lives!!! I don’t want them butting into MY life; so, I’m staying OUT of theirs!!!

It’s not a matter of more or less but rather do they have any rights at all. If you are ‘Pro Choice’ it requires you to believe the fetus has no rights what so ever. Afterall you will kill and dispose of it. You can’t have any less than that.

@Jaxk On the other hand, if you’re pro-life, you do give the fetus more rights than you would give to any other human. If an adult needed my kidney or blood to survive, I am under no legal obligation to give it to them. Forcing me to allow the fetus to use my body violates my bodily autonomy in a way that there is no other legal precedent for.

At what point does a fetus become a child? At the instant that the egg is fertilized? What about the rights of individual sperm and egg cells? What act of magic takes place at the instant they come in contact?

Pro lifers believe the second the woman finds out she is pregnant, it’s a child from that point on.
BUT!!! Does it then have more or less rights than the woman carrying it?

They do have it pretty sweet; I wish I were unborn :D

If you are pro-life, you view the unborn child as a living thing and assign the rights of a human to it. If you are a pro-choice, you view the unborn child as a thing and not a person. Things do not have the rights of humans. That is the gist of it. The pro-choicers will say no, it does not have even the same rights as the mother. The pro-lifers will say yes, it does have the same rights as the mother, including the right to life. Does that mean it has more rights than the mother? No, not anymore than a born child has more rights than a parent. The difference, I think, comes down to responsibility. The pro-lifers believe the mother has a responsibility to the unborn child, just as a parent has a responsibility to their born child.

There are declarative sentences being made about how others feel: @Jaxk says ”If you are ‘Pro Choice’ it requires you to believe (bold is my own emphasis) that the fetus has no rights whatsoever.” um, no it doesn’t. @SQUEEKY2 says: ”Pro lifers believe the second the woman finds out she is pregnant, it’s a child from that point on.” Again, not absolute. You are each speaking for others. How about you speak for yourselves and not presume to put your suppositions on the rest of the world?

Personally, I don’t believe that that something that can’t survive extra-utero should be granted legal rights as a full human. That point changes as technology in the areas of fetal survival advances.

Yeah you’re putting words in mouths. I’m pro-choice yet I don’t doubt that fetuses are alive. Being pro-choice doesn’t take any rights away from fetuses that adults have. Adults don’t have the right to use my body in order to stay alive. If I “kill” an adult by refusing to give them an organ or blood donation, I have broken no law.

Define a human child: What makes a human Human?? What puts us above the other animals??

My opinion is when the fetus is self sustaining it has equal rights. This basically agrees with current federal law, the word is viability. It’s a little bit of a grey area, because how much medical intervention would we still say the baby is viable? Sometimes 9 month fetuses need a little assist when born.

Let’s just ignore the little bit of grey area, my point is, if the baby would be able to survive outside of the mother, then I feel like it should not be aborted, except in circumstances like severe genetic diseases, but even that is changing now that we can detect the genetic problems earlier.

I think viability is somewhere around 5.5 – 6 months.

As individuals we are not obligated to give our body systems to support another life. I don’t have to give you my blood if you need it, or a kidney, just like I think the government can’t say a woman must give her body systems to maintain a fetus. But, she needs to figure it out before the fetus is viable. In my opinion.

I’m against abortions as a means of birth control. In some cases it’s OK with me.

As far as at what stage of the pregnancy the new life a human baby, we might find an answer in the old phrase: “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. In this theory, fetal development resembles ancestral forms and goes from one form to the next in chronological order of evolution. The youngest fetus resembles the oldest ancestor, and progresses through more advanced animal forms. At one stage the fetus has gill slits like a fish. At another stage the fetus has a tail like a lizard. It even looks a little like a chicken at one stage. Is it unreasonable to say that at these early stages the fetus has not yet reached a level of development to quality it as human. Of course it has human DNA and the potential to reach human status but it really isn’t a baby yet. So abortion is more acceptable (to me and others) at these very early stages of development.

Seems reasonable to say that as soon the fetus starts looking like a human baby then it is a human baby and deserves all the rights as any human (Accept when the unborn baby’s life threatens the mother’s life).

I just want to clarify that my argument is not whether the fetus is a life, it’s whether it’s a self sustaining life.

I’m not going to offer an opinion, but I have read down through the thread.
I must say, everyone here has made very strong, good points for each opinion.

^Agreed. And it’s been pretty civil. I don’t have much to add, at this point.

Being alive does not equate to being human. Sperm cells and egg cells are alive, but we do not treat them as human, even though it is theoretically possible to clone an egg cell. Saying that a fetus at the time of conception is human does not make it so.

My view: rights are contingent on personhood. Personhood is contingent on birth.

Even having the ability to sustain life doesn’t make it any more special than some other animal. What makes a human being special? Answer: conscious, reasoning thought. When a fetus has this ability is what makes it human. Otherwise it is no different than a cancer growing inside a human body.

@Mariah – Your argument sounds good but if you look just a little closer, it doesn’t hold up. Anytime you take action to kill a human it is illegal. The whole act of abortion is designed to kill the fetus. If you don’t believe it is human, you can justify it at least to yourself. In fact, in late term abortions the fetus is given a lethal injection to insure it isn’t born alive.

Personally I’m in agreement with many here in that early abortion is much less offensive than late term. The problem with viability or appearance is that there is no clear line. Too bad, without a clear line we will continue to dispute abortion forever.

@Jaxk There is not a clear line, but in most instances it is clear. An 8 month and older fetus is viable. You can birth it, or remove it from the mother, and it will cry and breath and do just fine on its own. It is not dependent on the mother. Even 7th month, I would say everyone agrees viability is clear. Under 5 months, not viable. That baby dies fast, it is completely parasitic on the mother. 5.5 to 6 we can save some of those babies, especially in the 6th month, but they can have long lasting disabling problems.

I have a friend who works in the neonatal ICU and she is a Baptist, and pro-life. She says she would not try to save some of these babies that people try to save. They fetus goes through so much and and wind up very disabled if it lives.

So, I realize sometimes in abortion we are talking about health fetuses, but my only point is about viability for this answer.

@Jaxk: the “late term abortion” argument is faulty. Except in VERY few cases, (because every discussion has a case or two they can point to, rather like the “panhandler with a penthouse apartment” scenario) the abortion of a viable, potentially healthy fetus is virtually unheard of. If the fetus is so badly in developmental distress that it likely won’t survive being carried to term, or any sort of birth process, and/or if the woman is in danger of dying, then they deliver the fetus in a manner to cause the least distress to both parties.

No reputable physician would perform this procedure on the arbitrary whim of anyone.

Some fetuses have been viable at as little as 5 months gestational age, although the process of caring for a baby that premature is daunting and never certain.

My information source is my sister, who had a decades long career as an OB nurse, so I can’t link, but the information is out there.

The terms “late term” and “partial birth” abortions are pulled out for arguments like this, and are so rarely applicable as to not even register on the meter.

I struggle with this issue quite a bit and have been unable to take sides for any long-term period. I view a fetus as a life that should have human rights just as anyone else. I find it odd that the very groups who are fighting to extend rights, respect and opportunity to everyone are the ones who have zero problem with killing the unborn.The line between “life” and “not life” is broad and grey. I struggle to define it and I’m not the only one. You can call a fetus a clump of cells but then again so is every living person. The bodily autonomy argument I’m not completely on board with simply because the sole person who can sustain said life is the mother. If you don’t want to give blood or an organ that’s your choice but there are usually always others who can lend a hand. The mother-child symbiosis is a unique situation that deserves more than a broad stroke and it’s not that women randomly conceive. Birth control is not 100% and there are potential consequences to sexual activity. I have less sympathy for someone wanting an abortion with a healthy pregnancy derived from consensual sex. Not in the same ballpark of randomly dictating someone donate a kidney. That’s so iffy too because I can totally see the perspective of someone who does not want Gov’t or anyone else dictating real risks to health and essentially nine months of suffering. Then again does that tump what many believe is state sponsored murder of an innocent? I don’t think that the child’s rights trump those of the mother nor do I think an abortion of convenience is grounds to circumvent the life and rights of the child. I think it’s crazy to outlaw abortions that are medically necessary to the health of the mother or pregnancies originating from rape. I believe that the “life at conception” and “sanctity of life” arguments from the religious right are misguided and just as extreme as the pro choice left. I also think it’s unfair that the father usually gets no say at all in the matter yet will often also have lifelong consequences on either side of the decision.
I think both sides who want it completely one way or the other are in the wrong on this. I can only see taking each individual case under careful consideration and acting accordingly. I don’t have the strongest opinion on any of this as outcomes of unwanted pregnancies are often sad on both ends and I find the arguments given one way or the other to be very weak.

ARE_you_kidding_me “I also think it’s unfair that the father usually gets no say at all in the matter yet will often also have lifelong consequences on either side of the decision.”

Consequences? Hardly. The father can easily fuck off and never has to have anything to do with the child.

Ok then, a good father will have lifelong consequences. Those consequences don’t always have to be bad either. I think even a good many who do just run away will end up feeling remorse and sadness for it. Simply saying Na the guy can just run is sort of a cop out. Mom can do that too, the day the kid is born. Happens all the time.

The late term abortion aggression by the right is extremely upsetting. Most people who get late term abortions I would venture to say want to be pregnant and want a child.

Any fetus with a heartbeat is, in my view, a living , breathing human being. Even if it can’t see anything or make decisions. I think they will find, as they have with trees and flowers “communicating” with one another that fetuses have more faculties than we now know about. So, if we cause them to die we’ve committed a murder. Thousands of women who have aborted sense this and harbor so much guilt they have to have counseling. I’d imagine the babies aborted who come out crying create unbearable guilt to the mother. How could they not?
At the end of life, the deciding party is God. So, if we’ve had one or even paid for one just hope He will forgive us and have mercy on us.

I think it’s relevant to note that no pregnancy is guaranteed to be “successful.” Women have miscarriages all the time. Even if there were no signs of a problem. One could argue that some aborted fetuses would never have made it anyway…

AYKM. You opined that prochoice people have “zero” concerns about abortions. I would think that is incorrect. I am prochoice, but I don’t like that it happens. I’m very happy that it’s an option. I’m a quality of life guy. It is a relief, to me, that so many people didn’t have to live a terrible life. Call that thinking what you will. There have been plenty of times that I wished I was never born…

I can usually hear myself when I’m being eaten. Been quite a while though.

@Aster , Is that an argument against vegetarianism? If plants suffer from death in the same way as animals, you might as well eat animals. It would also follow that abortion is no worse than eating a cucumber.

“There have been plenty of times that I wished I was never born…”
Who has not thought that at one time or another but all in all most find more positives in life than not. I will agree though “zero concerns” was a little too harsh. Poor choice of words as I don’t actually believe that either.

^Thanks man. No worries.

Obviously, the person carrying the child has more rights IF the law in that country gives those rights to the pregnant woman. If you were in a country that made abortion illegal the unborn child would have more rights. That’s what your question asked, isn’t it?

I think that you give up your rights to your body once you conceive, unless it’s a matter of the mother’s health/ death (which would be one person vs one person.)

At least 38 states have Fetal Homicide laws now, which establishes the fetus as a ‘person’.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

So if, say, your child needs a kidney transplant and you’re a match, should you be forced to give your kidney?

@KNOWITALL . With that mindset, shouldn’t we tie pregnant women down until they give birth? She could smoke, eat bad things, consume drugs, or any number of things that could harm the fetus.

@Darth_Algar Your question speaks more about you than @KNOWITALL. To me, if my child needed a kidney transplant and I’m a match, they wouldn’t have to force me to give it up…I would give it willingly. I think most caring parents would. The fact that you try to use that as some warped debate point and try turning it into a “forced to give” statement tells me more about your mentality.

@KNOWITALL those fetal homicide laws are about as sleazy as I have seen come out of politicians. They determine a fetus is a person in a murder case, but refuse to acknowledge it is a person when it comes to abortion. In my mind, it either is or isn’t a person. Those laws are just plain wishy-washy.

@seawulf575 The point is should the government force you to give the kidney? Should that be the law? No choice for the individual?

After the child is born others than just the mother can donate said kidney. The organ donor argument is not the same.

The mother is getting wear on her kidneys, liver, heart, taking vitamins and minerals from her body, let alone health problems that can occur like diabetes, back problems, incontinence, high blood pressure, the list goes on, and health issues happen more often than one might think.

Even if I were the only match in the world I would not be forced to donate my kidney AYKM.

Jaxk I don’t see how the details of how abortion is performed are relevant. Nobody has any innate right to use my body. If someone insists on doing so I should have every right to evict them by whatever means are necessary.

Some statistics on late term abortions. I found this site https://www.google.com/amp/s/drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-abortions-are-really-performed-in-the-united-states/amp/

Like I said, late term is most likely most often people who want their babies. Everyone I know who had an abortion after 14 weeks (they were mid term abortions I guess) wanted to be pregnant and have a baby.

Pro choice fights for the rights and availability of abortion for all the pro-life’s who use the service, and believe me they do. They do when the fetus has severe problems and cannot survive. For some they don’t want to continue a pregnancy that has no hope, and for others they want to have a baby, and staying pregnant means having to wait many many more months to be able to try again. Sometimes it’s bith reasons. They abort when the mother’s health is very at risk. Not all pro-life people abort in these circumstances. But many do.

@Mariah I agree with you, forcing an person to give an organ is obviously over the top. I don’t think it’s always so cut and dry with pregnancy though. Most unwanted pregnancies are a result of activity where said pregnancy is a known consequence. It’s different than dictating a person who has nothing to do with the situation come to the rescue.

And yet, if the person needed a kidney because theirs had been damaged in a car crash I caused, I still would not be forced to give mine to them.

@ARE_you_kidding_me

“Most unwanted pregnancies are a result of activity where said pregnancy is a known consequence.”

Correct. I’m not sure when Personal Responsibility became a Republican trait, used to be called common sense.

@seawulf Actually that was a pretty major victory in the political arena. Until there is precedence for ‘personhood’ independent of the mother, the rest is harder.

@Mariah, say someone hits another with the car and needs a kidney. Since the two are not biologically entwined others can donate the kidney if they wish. Dialysis can keep the person alive for quite a stretch as well. Until we have the technology ( and we will) to grow aborted fetuses from zygote to adult in an artificial womb then the mother has the sole responsibility for the child growing in her. The two scenarios are different. A mother and child is a special case and deserves special attention. If the mother has an abnormal pregnancy that changes things completely. Don’t get my tone wrong here, I again don’t have the strongest opinions on this. It’s pretty grey and wishy washy and hard for me not to see both validity and fallacy on both sides.

So after all this which one has more rights?
I have been chastised for saying what I have heard both sides say for years.
The pro life side very vaguely that they only think the woman has more rights if her health or in fact her very life could be in jeopardy if she takes the pregnancy full term but only then.
The pro choice side says the woman has more rights.
Did I get this right or like normal miss the point altogether?

@SQUEEKY2 Here’s a good article on the pro life stance on mothers ‘health’ in regards to abortion, which states ‘health’ lacks definition and also that those cases are VERY rare.

That’s probably why you presume the pro life stance is ‘very vaguely’ saying those cases are different.
(This is the same vagueness in reference to incest or rape, as those are less than 2% of all abortions performed.)

‘The Roman Catholic Church has consistently condemned abortion — the direct and purposeful taking of the life of the unborn child. In principle, Catholic Christians believe that all life is sacred from conception until natural death, and the taking of innocent human life, whether born or unborn, is morally wrong.’
*Many Pro Life folks are also against the death penalty for the same reason.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/abortion-and-double-effect

AYKM so if we didn’t have dialysis and we couldn’t find another kidney donor you’d be fine with the state forcing the person at fault in the car crash to give up their kidney?

Also, “health of the mother” arguments always seem to ignore the actual HEALTH of the mother. This should be phrased as “life of the mother” instead. Most people agree it’s okay to abort if the mother is in mortal danger, but pro-lifers seem awfully certain that it’s okay to force a woman to be permanently disabled or damaged by pregnancy, which I have a huge problem with.

Whereas you’re not required to donate that kidney, you’re also not allow to kill the person that needs it. I don’t see the kidney argument as a valid comparison.

@Mariah I’m not certain I understand the ‘permanently disabled or damaged by pregnancy’? What exactly do you mean? I am an admitted Pro-Lifer and always will be, but I would love to be Pro Choice when abortion isn’t used as birth control for idiots.

@Jaxk If the person will not be able to survive without the use of my kidney then I am indeed allowed to “kill” them by denying it. But I’m guessing your point here is that you are still hung up on the details how abortions are performed. I do not know these details myself but I would guess that they are in place to prevent unnecessary suffering on the part of the fetus. If removing it from the womb at 3 months is going to inevitably kill it anyway then using a lethal injection seems to be a method of preventing it from suffering a long and drawn out death. You’re welcome to educate me if I’m mistaken.

@KNOWITALL I’m not sure what the confusion is? Have you never heard of people having permanent disability or disfigurement following pregnancy or birth? Lasting pain, incontinence, etc. are not uncommon even in ordinary low-risk pregnancies.

My main point though is that the “life of the mother” argument rarely makes room for abortion even in pregnancies where the mother is likely to experience a severe health complication, unless that complication is going to kill her.

If you need a concrete example: I could probably survive pregnancy. But because of my health history I would not be able to have a natural birth and would need a C-section. I am already dealing with frequent small bowel obstructions because of all the scar tissue I have in my abdominal cavity from prior surgeries. Another major abdominal surgery would make this issue worse for me. The obstructions cause me indescribable pain, put me into the hospital for weeks at a time, and sometimes require surgery to be resolved, which takes a huge toll on my health and causes months of misery. I cannot even begin to describe how horrible it would be for me to have this issue worsened beyond what it already is, which pregnancy and delivery would virtually guarantee.

Does the fetus’s life trump my health?

I strongly believe that, if I ever find myself pregnant, I should be able to, in consultation with my doctor, make the decision that is best for my health without the state butting their noses in and making decisions for me because they think it’s physically possible for me to merely survive pregnancy.

@Mariah Ah I see. My response would be to make sure you use effective birth control, maybe two or three varieties, for safety.

Not trying to be harsh but some people make it seem impossible to NOT get pregnant, there’s a whole movement of people who live fulfilling lives minus children- by choice.

I do do that. The pill and condoms. It is still, of course, possible for them to fail and for me to get pregnant. I would like to have options if that happened.

@Mariah You can still get the abortion pill in many big cities, like in Missouri you can get them in St Louis and Kansas City.

Which pill are you referring to? Plan B? I would have to know within some 48 hours that my birth control had failed. Obviously I would know if the condom had broken, but my understanding is that Plan B is not recommended for broken condom if you’re on another method of contraceptive such as birth control pills. I wouldn’t know that my birth control pills had failed unless I took a pregnancy test some weeks later and it came back positive, by which time it’d be too late for Plan B.

Unless you’re referring to a medical abortion, in which case, of course I’d seek that out if it were accessible to me, but I’m not sure I understand why you support it above surgical abortion?

@seawulf575 “Your question speaks more about you than @KNOWITALL. To me, if my child needed a kidney transplant and I’m a match, they wouldn’t have to force me to give it up…I would give it willingly. I think most caring parents would. The fact that you try to use that as some warped debate point and try turning it into a “forced to give” statement tells me more about your mentality.”

The question isn’t about whether you or I would or not. The question is should you be forced to. What rights do you have over your own body? Should someone else’s health, even if it’s your child, legally trump your own? Try addressing the question as is instead of dancing around it and casting aspersions.

@Mariah I honestly don’t support any of the forms, I was just stating it is available for use.

Watch one, there’s plenty of video’s online. I have and I don’t know how anyone could allow that to happen to a dog/animal willingly, let alone a human being.

@Darth_Algar I was staying on topic. There is a huge difference between your views and mine. Part of that is the interpretation of the question. The question is who has more rights, the mother or the unborn baby. You are the one that tried changing that into being forced to give up kidneys to a born child. I suspect that in your view, saying a child has more rights means that the mother is somehow a slave and at risk. That is what your question tells me about you. The fact that you didn’t consider that a parent might Want to give up a kidney makes it even worse, in my view. Your question implies, to me, that you view life very selfishly. The happiness of any given person should supersede that of any other person. But that’s how you come across to me. I view your question as either trolling or just deeply disturbing. You took it all the way to a born child. That would make @KNOWITALL even more accurate. She even put in the proviso about health/death of the mother. You purposely ignored that so you could create a situation where the government would force a parent to give up a kidney. If there was someone that avoided addressing the question, it was you, not me. I just called you on it.

@KNOWITALL Okay? Lol I know it’s available. The question is whether you think abortion ought to remain available to people in situations like mine or whether you think I should be forced to sacrifice my health for a fetus. You conveniently didn’t answer one way or the other.

As much as I know you would love to believe that only irresponsible people who didn’t use protection need abortions, it isn’t true. My mom got an abortion after getting pregnant on an IUD, the most effective form of birth control.

@Mariah Okay, so do I, so good for us. :)

No, I think if you fail to properly use your personal selection of birth control appropriately, you can do 9 months, give it up and go back to your life.

IUD’s are great, 99% effective. The 1% could have been prevented with a condom, which also protects you against STD’s. That’s why I said multiple layers of protection earlier.

Listen I’m 45 years old and I managed not to get pregnant, even through a rape. Many women have made the same choice, it’s not that difficult.

@KNOWITALL , the statistics that you cite are percentages. The 99% means one out of a hundred will get pregnant. Or ten per thousand. Or ten thousand per million. Or a million per hundred million. Those numbers matter.
I also “managed not to get pregnant” even with the unexpected occasional surprise unprotected event. Turns out I was infertile and had to go to extreme lengths to bear a child.

Lastly, @Mariah has a medical backstory, as do so many, where a pregnancy could literally destroy their health. These are factors that should be heavily considered before making statements about what sacrifices women should have to make.

Did you not read the part where I described how pregnancy would have permanent horrible effects on my body? It would not simply be 9 months and go back to my life. That’s literally the whole point of this debate we’re having.

Do you seriously not believe that birth control fails even with proper use? You are objectively wrong about that.

@Mariah Ben Carlson told the republicans that it’s almost never the case that pregnancy causes dire consequences or death. A fucking doctor said that.

I personally know someone basically crooked from giving birth. They should have done a c-section for her and they didn’t. She can walk short distances. My girlfriend had toxemia like so many other women, but she wound up being ok. The wife of my rheumatologist began hemorrhaging in her 9th month, she’s a doctor also, was doing rounds at the hospital and so they saved her. If she had not been at the hospital she would have died. Many women have diabetes when pregnant. Remember Steele Magnolias? The daughter died because she insists on getting pregnant against earnings from her doctor, but her organs just can’t handle it. I know that’s a movie, but it’s a real possibility for some women.

Pro-lifers change their tune when it’s their daughter or their wife, believe me, but until it is they stay obstinate in their pro-life stance. It’s just how it is. They need to experience.

I’m not so sure my Baptist girlfriend would be in favor of letting the 5 month premie simply die if she wasn’t a nurse in the neonatal ICU. I know the very Catholic couple I knew who had a fetus growing with basically no brain was pro-life, until it was their baby, and they could not get an abortion where they lived and had to cross state lines, and had to walk in front of a line of protestors calling them baby killers. I told the husband months after the fact when he recounted the story to me that that’s why he is pro-choice. He looked a little stunned when I said it. I know he still probably saw himself as pro-life, but where would he get that abortion if abortion becomes illegal and doctors are afraid of going to jail?

We’re on the same side, but I’m just saying “they” don’t bother with knowing the times it really is a health risk, because they just don’t believe that’s the case 99% of the time. Something like that. It will still be your fault, and so you take the risk you do the punishment.

@seawulf575

I did not say that you were not on topic. Indeed this entire thread has, thus far, remained on topic. I said you are not addressing my question, as is, choosing instead to dance around it and make assumptions about my mentality. And you’re still dancing around it.

As for the original post: I’ve answered that. Any further posts from me in this thread are part of the ongoing conversation that sprung from the original question.

“AYKM so if we didn’t have dialysis and we couldn’t find another kidney donor you’d be fine with the state forcing the person at fault in the car crash to give up their kidney”

No of course not, I still see it as a completely different scenario though. People die waiting for organs all the time. Mother and child are intertwined during pregnancy and not separate individuals. Actually we have the death penalty here so I don’t see that as being far off from forcing who caused the wreck to donate. Obviously I’m not in favor of the death penalty.
On birth control I tend to see grey lines on that too. The morning after pill I see as contraception, same goes for finding out a few weeks later. I see a zygote as being more on the side of “not life yet” I start to shift my opinion if a pregnancy is allowed to go past this point, known or not.

Thanks for clarifying AYKM. I disagree that I am not a seprarate individual from a fetus I’m carrying but we don’t have to agree 100% obviously.

Eh, I’m not very convinced myself. This is not one of my more solid issues.

^^ :)

This seems to be one of those issues that have no solution. It has no solution because we don’t argue the real issue but rather the exceptions. There are about 700,000 abortions per year and according to these guys 98.3% are optional while 1.7% are due to medical reasons for either the mother or baby. Above (I believe it was @JLeslie) said late term abortions were a tiny percentage of the abortions. Yet everytime we discuss this issue Pro-lifers go to the late term scenario and pro-choicers go the medical reasons. It seems no one wants to discuss the 98% of abortions that are simple choices. OK, not so simple but choices.

It might be choices but as you said not so simple, and nobody has touched on the rape or incest ones, you going to tell a woman who was raped nope you have to carry the devils spawn to term?
That devil spawn has more rights than the woman?? I DON’T THINK SO!!
How about a 13 year old abused by a family member and now pregnant sorry the fetus has more rights than you do, again I DON’T THINK SO!
In those cases I stand behind those women 1 million percent.

@Mariah “Did you not read the part where I described how pregnancy would have permanent horrible effects on my body? It would not simply be 9 months and go back to my life. That’s literally the whole point of this debate we’re having.”.

I did, and said I’d use multiple forms of birth control to make sure I didn’t get pregnant. Are you not listening? This is NOT rocket science, Mariah.

“Do you seriously not believe that birth control fails even with proper use? You are objectively wrong about that.”

I didn’t say that, I said use MULTIPLE FORMS. You know like a pill and condoms, etc….IUD and condoms, which I specifically mentioned.

And this, to me, is not factual debate. I’m never going to say enjoy your free love and if there are consequences, just murder them with no guilt about the part you played in that. It’s legal, so go for it.

@SQUEEKY2 I actually did address those two issues, which comprise 2% of all abortions. While it’s pertinent, it’s not the majority.

@Jaxk You make a valid point. In my opinion the pro-lifers chose late term abortion to erode abortion rights in general. I am not talking about this Q, I mean as a political issue.

The later the term, the more the fetus is like a full term baby, how it looks (although, pro-lifers represent a 5 month fetus often as though it is a 9 month fetus in depictions, which is an exaggeration) and more upsetting for people to imagine this baby being taken from the mother, and killed as they would see it. Plus, late term abortion procedures are much more intricate. It’s not a simple pill, or a couple of minutes to evacuate the fetus. It’s more gory, but most surgical procedures are I guess.

Back in the day an abortion was filmed on the Donahue show, and the commentary was mostly about how simple and quick the procedure was. I never saw the episode, and I’ve never witnessed an early abortion myself, but I’m assuming it is quick and not very traumatic physically. Other commentary made more recently when referring to that episode is that a talk show host probably couldn’t get away with featuring that today.

Anyway, women like me, who know women who have had late-ish term abortions, who wanted their babies, some trying months and years to be pregnant, and I personally who have lost 5 wanted pregnancies, only one of which I had to terminate myself because it was ectopic, it’s terrifying to me that they go after late term abortions. For someone like @Mariah the whole thing is terrifying. I don’t see why people don’t understand that.

If the pro-life movement would leave late term alone as being mostly a medical issue, and focus on the ethical discussion of abortion in general, that would be great. The pro-lifers have to be willing to deal with the real medical facts though. They can’t have some fantasy of nature and God and all pregnancies are wonderful. I’m not accusing anyone in this thread of that, I’m talking about the pro-life movement.

The fetus has a 20–30% chance of being lost/dying spontaneously, on its own, within the first 3 months. Already in that sense the fetus is not equal to the woman carrying it. She is 99.9% chance of living for a long time, and might be a mother to other children and responsible for many other lives, and an intricate part of society. In the first few weeks the embryo or fetus is not self aware, and people seem to favor abortion as early as possible, so then if it is going to be done, it would be done prior to knowing whether that pregnancy was going to make it past the 3 month point.

The best option is not getting pregnant in the first place, but that does not always happen.

@KNOWITALL what about the whole abstinence push in school and the Catholic girl who told me she wouldn’t use birth control because that’s a sin. She was 14, considering having sex with her boyfriend. Most of my Catholic friends don’t think that way even as teenagers, but my point is we need to be willing to teach kids about sex and pregnancy as a basic part of biology and health. I’m assuming you’re in favor of it, but there is pushback from the very religious it seems. I understand some of their quarrel, because I guess some school districts get into gay sex from what I understand. I actually am ok with not including that, I just want girls and boys to know about their bodies, about pregnancy, about STD’s, and about contraception.

To answer your Q as asked, @SQUEEKY2, the legal angle differs from state to state.
On this thread, it seems that most want to grant the fetus more rights.
I am glad that in most discussions of this type you seem to understand that a whole, contributing person should have value in her own right, and not be reduced to an incubator.

Thank you @canidmajor it does seem that way.
Now to stray a little off topic what gets me is hard core pro lifers condemn any kind of birth control as well,and frankly that is WRONG in my books, get on your white horse and shout down abortion but to say any kind of birth control is wrong.
Just blows my mind.

When I had a child who was conceived by extreme surgical measures, I was told by so many (not just religious people) that it was “unnatural”. I would gently point out to them that by the same standards, driving a car was also unnatural. I was rupturing stuff rolling my eyes in a few short years.

@KNOWITALL I already explained that I do use multiple forms of birth control. But because condoms and pills both have a failure rate, it is completely possible for both to fail at the same time. The fact that you think this is impossible is mind-blowing to me.

@JLeslie That is the Catholic interpretation, yes.

Baptists are the ones who share purity rings and wait for marriage.

Many people here don’t seem to understand that people who take their religion seriously, which of course, includes their children. In the case you mention, who in their right mind approves of a 14 year old getting active? Not me.

Its a whole different set of rules set by an individuals religion, but as far as many in my area, yes people prefer abstinence be the rule. Sex Ed is controversial but in my day we had a Health class that taught you some of that, showed a woman having a baby, etc… The non-religious folks just throw condoms at their teens and go about their business.

But what I will also state is that many people in my area would prefer not to get abortions, as you can see by statistics. Of course the major urban areas probably account for most of those.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortion-rate/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

@Mariah Fine, do you, be happy- I never said it was impossible so maybe don’t put words in my mouth. Just because it happened to your mother, doesn’t mean it happens to everyone. Like I said, I managed for 45 years, it can be done, lots of people make the choice not to have kids and magically don’t have kids.

Yeah I fucking understand it doesn’t happen to everyone. Somehow the thought of being even more horribly disabled than I already am is scary even if it’s unlikely. Sue me for being afraid and wanting options to protect my body – options you would love to rip away from me.

Um… @KNOWITALL, maybe you didn’t “manage for 45 years”. Maybe you are one of the high percentage of women with fertility issues. The “just do what I did” approach doesn’t work here.

@Mariah You have choices, the ‘fetus’ would not.

@canidmajor ‘Time reported that this pattern is particularly pronounced for women between 25 and 29 — 49.6 percent of women in that age group don’t have kids.’

49.6 of us don’t all have fertility issues, but good try.

Huh? @KNOWITALL, what are you talking about? Your numbers make no sense. And fertility issues are not cut and dried. There are so many fac5ors at play. I can address this better if you link.
If you never tried to have children, you wouldn’t know.

I can’t seem to link on my tablet sorry) but the CDC site, and the women’s health government site have some numbers.

The CDC site mentions 12.1% of American women have impaired fecundity. That’s a lot. My point is that you might be infertile and not know it. Regular check ups won’t address it, and sometimes comprehensive testing (as in my case) won’t uncover a concrete reason.

Why argue about this fertility question? It’s true if you’re on BC you don’t know if you’re infertile. It’s also true that if you use BC consistently you’re very very unlikely to become pregnant.

I used the pills for many years and had sec almost every day for three of them and never got pregnant.

I used the avoid sex during ovulation method while married, and never became pregnant. First month I tried I got pregnant. Second time I was pregnant it happened the first month I tried. The third time I was pregnant it happened the second month I tried. I’ve been pregnant 5 times, and it pretty much happened like that. In-between all of those pregnancies was months of just using the avoid sex during ovulation method. Then I had a surgery and never got pregnant again.

My friends mom used the pull out method while married. She planned her two kids, both pregnancies happened within three months, she never got pregnant otherwise.

Anyway, so what?

The point is there are times when women get pregnant when they take every precaution. I have a friend who used a diaphragm and condom all the time. She was a freak about not getting pregnant. She dated her boyfriend over two years before she would even have sex with him. Anyway, one night (they had been dating 5 years at this point) she didn’t have her diaphragm, so they only used a condom. Condom broke—boom preggers. She really was so very careful. She had the baby, she would never abort, but that’s not my point.

My point is it’s ridiculous to think that a pregnancy could never happen if you do everything right, even though I agree it’s very rare. NEVER is very absolute, and almost nothing in life is absolute. It also makes no sense to me to sentence Mariah to serious, maybe fatal, health issues to save a fetus. The person the most worried about the pregnancy would be @Mariah, why would anyone think she isn’t really very careful, she’s terrified about it.

I am “arguing” about the fertility issue, @JLeslie, because @KNOWITALL is asserting that she didn’t get pregnant because she used multiple forms of birth control.
That’s why.

@canidmajor I’m not talking to only you, I’m addressing @KNOWITALL also. In fact if anything I have more problems with her arguments here, because for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone doesn’t understand @Mariah’s fear related to this, especially another woman.

I am not talking about being pro-life. I understand why some people feel very strongly about the issue, but when it’s literally the mother’s life or the fetus, I just can’t undestsnd siding with the fetus. @Mariah already knows it’s very risky for her to be pregnant, she doesn’t need to become pregnant to find out. She’s not going to ignore a pregnancy and be in denial until the 5th months, she terrified, she would be peeing on sticks her first missed period. I would bet money on it.

@KNOWITALL
_“Many people here don’t seem to understand that people who take their religion seriously, which of course, includes their children. In the case you mention, who in their right mind approves of a 14 year old getting active? Not me.

Its a whole different set of rules set by an individuals religion, but as far as many in my area, yes people prefer abstinence be the rule. Sex Ed is controversial but in my day we had a Health class that taught you some of that, showed a woman having a baby, etc… The non-religious folks just throw condoms at their teens and go about their business.“_

Seriously? Nobody approves of 14 year-olds getting sexually active. However it will happen. Acknowledging the strong biological impulses that begin around that age, and arming kids with the knowledge to make safe, informed decisions whatever their choice, is not the same as approval.

My mother had her first child about a month before her 16th birthday. In her day there was no sex ed in school (at least not her school) and she had parents who preferred to act like sex didn’t exist. If they had taught her a bit then perhaps she wouldn’t have been saddled with a child while still a child herself.

But yes, let’s instead stick our heads in the sand and pretend that teenagers won’t have sex if we just tell them not to or, hell, even ignore it completely.

GREAT ANSWER @Darth_Algar !!!^^^^

My nephew is 15. He has already had multiple partners. I was active at 15 too. My father’s first wife was 13! (that was back in the 60’s…)

I know several teachers, who claim that kids are active at an alarmingly young age. Perhaps brought on by all the exposure they have through technology.

@Darth_Algar I tend to disagree with you. When I was growing up, having sex at 14 was extremely rare. It happened, but not with the regularity it does today. It was taught that it wasn’t right, it was frowned upon, it peers viewed offenders as being odd, not the norm. Taking the attitude that it Will Happen Anyway gives tacit acceptance of the behavior. And sitting back saying nobody approves of 14 year olds getting sexually active is a bit hypocritical in our society. We have movies and video games that show it. We had two different versions of Teen Mom that made teen sex and pregnancy an acceptable thing, even a good thing. We had a president that wanted to make morning after pills available to 12 year olds without prescription and without parental approval being necessary. We, as a society, are embracing the idea of young teens being sexually active. We do nothing to deter it nor to make it something that shouldn’t happen. In fact, if you do, many in today’s society want to make you out as some kind of freak. So to say that nobody approves? Nah…I can’t get there.

Oh, how I do love rose-tinted nostalgia.

Trump is going to take us back to those glory days…...

It might be rose-tinted, but also true. I heard of one teen pregnancy all the way through high school. Think there is a high school in this country today that could boast that? Other than an all boy’s school, that is. And trying to address my experiences with ridicule really avoids the point of my comment. I guess I could respond with Oh, how I do love those dodges.

Or, you could respond with honesty. Your values seem to align with the alt-right, or worse. I’m happy (seriously) that you like some people of color. They’re just different versions of us.
However, if you support the Trump agenda, you are against your friends. It’s really that simple.

So. It’s like you’re saying one thing, and voting another way…

So you then believe that inundating our children with ideas and examples of teen pregnancy being not only acceptable, but encouraged, and publicly fighting to make morning after pills available to 12 year olds without any guidance is a good thing. Good to know. Your values seem to align with the alt-left, or worse.
And trying to avoid the actual content of my answers so you can go for personal attacks really does cement that view.

I do believe that birth control methods should be available for 12 year olds. Yes. There’s more to birth control than killing. FAR more… And, if you think a 12 year old should be forced to
have a child, you are the one who needs to look in the mirror. You are a typical conservative, detached from reality. You’re basic plan, is to punish the pregnant female, and probably the fetus/future human. That’s something that I cannot understand…

As usual, I don’t see where I have “personally” attacked you.
I have trouble lately, believing that you are ex-military. Your skin is as thick as a soap bubble. Stop crying, and deflecting, and preach some truth… Please….

@seawulf575

No, it isn’t true. You think teens weren’t having sex back in your glorious good old days? Think again. You personally only heard of one teen pregnancy in your high school? Yeah, so did I. And I attended high school through the early to mid 1990’s. Unfortunately you make the mistake of believing that your personal anecdotal experience applies to the world at large. Here’s something non-ancedotal to chew on.

And nobody has personally attacked you. This persecution complex that you and a certain other user here weld does grow tiresome.

Sorry, when your response is: ”Oh, how I do love rose-tinted nostalgia.” you come off as personally attacking me or so incredibly condescending that you can’t even see how bad you are.
As for my experiences, I actually attended 4 separate high schools. 1 pregnancy in 4 high schools. The classes ranged from 100 students per class to 1000 per class. But also, let’s be honest, we were talking about 14 year olds. Your selection. Even your non-anecdotal doesn’t go that low. So really we are talking about junior high school or middle school, depending on your terminology. I also attended 3 of those. No pregnancies in any of them. And all this is still a avoidance of the original comment…that we as a society are pushing sex on our kids and that to say nobody approves is a joke at the very best. Both you and @MrGrimm888 have avoided that one. I have to wonder why. Are you incapable of dealing with that? Would it be too much an indictment of the liberal agenda?

I’m afraid I just have no idea what you’re talking about. Who is “pushing sex on our kids.” Liberals? By wanting them to have HPV vaccines (which only work when a person is young,) and birth control?

As with most conservatives, you are hurting the things that you think you are protecting. Including yourself. The sad part is, liberals are fighting for you.

I attended high school in the early to mid 80’s. Three girls I went to high school with had babies while in high school. Two girls had abortions that I knew of. Both girls who had abortions were super Christian, but that’s beside the point. Another girl I knew had a baby her first year of college. A friend of friend was 17 when she had her baby. This was way bak in the 80’s. I feel pretty sure in my high school there were more abortions than what I knew about, but I also knew plenty of girls who used birth control. I would say at least 50% of my friends lost their virginity by 18, probably much higher than 50%.

From what I understand statistics show that countries that have Sex Ed as a basic part of education including birth control information have less STD’s and fewer unwanted pregnancies among teens.

Do I think 14 year olds shouldn’t have sex? Yes, I think they shouldn’t. Do I think it happens? I think it’s not a high percentage that are having sex so young, but it’s enough that we need to take it seriously and not hide from it.

@seawulf575 “Sorry, when your response is: ”Oh, how I do love rose-tinted nostalgia.” you come off as personally attacking me”

If that’s your idea of being personally attacked then you should grow a thicker skin.

@MrGrimm888 I have detailed the exposures and why it is hypocritical saying we don’t approve of 14 year olds being sexually active. Claiming you don’t understand is just more of the dodge.

@Darth_Algar So you weren’t being condescending? You weren’t attacking me? Funny, because that is how it came across. So how exactly was your comment pertinent to the civil discussion we were having?

I made the comment because I am damned tired of people using their youth (which is almost always idealized, as people have limited experience and understanding, especially when they are young) as some glorified benchmark that the world ought to adhere to. The “good old days” were never as good as people remember.

So then you were attacking me because I didn’t fit into your idea of how I should think. Got it.

Are you really this sensitive? And folks call us liberals “snowflakes”...

No.

@Darth_Algar So the answer is yes, you were attacking me and now that I have pointed it out, you are attempting to do it again so you won’t have to admit it. Typical liberal.

Geez, you guys, do you have to do this on every thread? Guys, stop baiting @seawulf575, he rises to it every time.
@seawulf575, stop rising to it every time.
You all are acting like first graders.

DON’T MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR!!!

Thanks @canidmajor .