Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day - Page 2

Spiffor · January 15, 2003, 21:26

I can't wait to see the official banning of abortion in the US (I know, it's protected by the constitution).
Actually, I can't wait to see the administration's disney-like propaganda on the issue. I bet they'll say it improves freedom

Six Thousand Year Old Man · January 15, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

This is not a 'punishment' for sex, but a consequence.

semantics... negative consequence/punishment, whatever.

Quote:

Even with contraception, although contraception does lessen the likelyhood somewhat. Everyone should be prepared before sex for the possibility of getting their partner pregnant.

Sometimes pregnancies happen despite taking all reasonable precautions. And when that does happen, the couple/woman makes a decision. Keep the fetus, and irrevocably change her/their li(fe/ves), or terminate the pregnancy.

People have a right to have sex without having the specter of a massive life change hanging over their heads, due to a birth control failure.

And incidentally, if you don't call forcing someone to carry a child to term against her will and without compensation, slavery, what do you call it?

Ben Kenobi · January 15, 2003, 22:14

"People have a right to have sex without having the specter of a massive life change hanging over their heads, " -STYOM

Not in Canada we don't. Only one of the judges in the Morgentaler Supreme Court case in 1988 recognised a right to abortion within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The 8 other judges challenged the constitutionality of the 1969 law, and proposed that the legislature could pass a better law restricting abortion.

Once a woman is pregnant she is going through a major life change. Abortion is not like getting a nail trimmed. It is a major surgical procedure with a variety of potential complications. Even if she has the abortion it will not suddenly stop her life from changing.

"if you don't call forcing someone to carry a child to term against her will and without compensation, slavery, what do you call it?"

I call it motherhood.

Spiffor · January 15, 2003, 22:20

I know two 20 year old women who aborted (and one has kept the following child), and I can tell you there is no comparison between aborting and keeping the child. Aborting is a painful experience they'll always remember, but which will remain nothing more as a memory.
A child is something you think of 100% of the time, and that you cannot disregard any second. Big difference.

(btw, I am a hardcore pro choice if you didn't guess

Knowing 2 young women who told me they abortded and why helped)

Ben Kenobi · January 15, 2003, 22:43

Spiffor:

And here I thought I had an ally.

"Aborting is a painful experience they'll always remember, but which will remain nothing more as a memory."

What about the women who die? The women who end up having a hysterectomy? Approximately 90% of the women who have an abortion record some kind of negative effect afterwards, whether it be depression or something more serious.

"A child is something you think of 100% of the time, and that you cannot disregard any second."

Question Spiffor- should a women be allowed to kill her child because their child demands too much of their time? Why or why not?

Spiffor · January 15, 2003, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Question Spiffor- should a women be allowed to kill her child because their child demands too much of their time? Why or why not?

A woman should be able to kill her fetus before it reaches self-conciousness, if she feels she cannot give a satisfying life to the to-be-born baby.
This is completely subjective, because there is now way to tell objectively when the fetus reaches some kind of self conciousness. Some people believe we should protect the very first cell, while others think a human becomes one at birth and not before (Amélie Nothomb, Métaphysique des Tubes)
I believe "self-conciousness" (even a very vague form of it, meaning the ability to feel) is a step of the fetus development, and not the first one. I agree it is a question of belief. I do not see any moral problem killing a pre-consiousness fetus. Mind you, I do not see any moral problems pulling the plug out of a comatose person without hope of being alive again.

Yes, I believe it is better to "kill people" (since you seem to assimilate abortion with murder) before their birth, rather than making them jailbait. I strongly think a deficient education and a lack of parental love make for unbalanced children, and for extremely unhappy and sad people (and probably dangerous as well) in the future.

We shouldn't force unwanted children to suffer from lack of love.

Ben Kenobi · January 16, 2003, 00:06

A couple of points, Spiffor

"A woman should be able to kill her fetus before it reaches self-conciousness,"

"Mind you, I do not see any moral problems pulling the plug out of a comatose person without hope of being alive again."

Most comatose people do have a chance of recovery, brain death is defined as the irreversable cessation of brain activity, which is different from being comatose. If you were to pull the plug out of a comatose person, you are in effect, killing them.

Also, someone who is irreversably brain dead is different from the unborn child. The unborn child may not have the current capacity to be self-aware, but rather the inherent capacity as a human person.

Do I have the right to kill you when you are sleeping, when you are not currently self-aware? Why not?

"We shouldn't force unwanted children to suffer from lack of love."

Do we kill the homeless who are not loved? Let's give the children a chance to be loved, rather than killing them through abortion.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · January 16, 2003, 00:24

The bottom line is, you can't interfere with a woman's right to control her own body -

(as I, and others, have said in other threads and other places)

-

Go on all you want about whether a fetus is a 'life' or not.

Go on all you want about how great an experience motherhood is (for those who desire it).

Restricting the right of a woman to choose whether to carry a fetus is a gross invasion of privacy, tantamount to viewing women as involuntary incubators, if they object to the pregnancy. And no number of winking smilies will change that.

I suspect you'd see it differently if you knew anyone who had to make that choice.

BTW, the SCC routinely avoids making policy decisions (e.g. "there is a constitutional right to abortion") where simply finding a law unconstitutional on other grounds will suffice for the same effect. R. v. Morgantaler was such an instance.

Spiffor · January 16, 2003, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
A couple of points, Spiffor

"A woman should be able to kill her fetus before it reaches self-conciousness,"

"Mind you, I do not see any moral problems pulling the plug out of a comatose person without hope of being alive again."

Most comatose people do have a chance of recovery, brain death is defined as the irreversable cessation of brain activity, which is different from being comatose. If you were to pull the plug out of a comatose person, you are in effect, killing them.

Also, someone who is irreversably brain dead is different from the unborn child. The unborn child may not have the current capacity to be self-aware, but rather the inherent capacity as a human person.

Do I have the right to kill you when you are sleeping, when you are not currently self-aware? Why not?

"We shouldn't force unwanted children to suffer from lack of love."

Do we kill the homeless who are not loved? Let's give the children a chance to be loved, rather than killing them through abortion.

I almost replied to this before seeing how meaningless it would be. I don't assimilate abortion with murder. You do. Call this a conflict of values, because I don't think any of your kind will change my mind, while I don't think you'll change your mind either (except if you go through this kind of experience). It's fine by me, I don't care.

What I care about is the happiness of the mother and the child.

Jon Miller · January 16, 2003, 00:55

and part of that, fundamental to that, for the child, is to be alive

most people come from sucky situations, it is not fair for some to not be born at all (and I do not see how it is not murder after brainwaves exist)

Jon Miller

Ben Kenobi · January 16, 2003, 01:10

Where did I call abortion murder?

Your words not mine, Spiffor.
If you can't take the heat...

STYOM

"I suspect you'd see it differently if you knew anyone who had to make that choice."

Actually, I used to agree that it was a women's issue in which men have no part UNTIL I had a chance to meet some women who had abortion experiences. It's not a panacea, it can maim the women, even sterilise them.

"a woman's right to control her own body"

"Restricting the right of a woman to choose whether to carry a fetus is a gross invasion of privacy,"

Both assume there is only one body in question. The fetus has it's own circulatory system, a different blood type, and sometimes in an autoimmune disorder, the mother's antibodies destroy the fetus as they do not recognise the fetus as a part of the mother's body.

If there is only one person, then no justification is necessary for abortion. None whatsoever. If there is two, then both need to be considered.

We don't allow children to be beat in the privacy of the home, because we believe the child's welfare outweighs any privacy rights. Should abortion be the same?

Six Thousand Year Old Man · January 16, 2003, 01:25

You didn't address my points...

How can you justify forcing a person to be an incubator?

Ben Kenobi · January 16, 2003, 01:37

I thought I went over that point.

Unless the state is forcibly impregnating people, then no woman is forced to be an incubator.

Sex can result in pregnancy, even with condoms and other forms of precautions. So long as the woman is not forced to have sex, she has to take responsibility for her actions.

The unborn child has nowhere else to go, while it is developing in the womb. Therefore, it is the duty of the mother to care for her child, at least until the child is born. Then, the care can be turned over to another couple if the mother feels she cannot take care of the child.

Is there an alternative? Is their another place the child could develop before they are born?

Proteus_MST · January 16, 2003, 03:01

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
I thought I went over that point.

Unless the state is forcibly impregnating people, then no woman is forced to be an incubator.

Sex can result in pregnancy, even with condoms and other forms of precautions. So long as the woman is not forced to have sex, she has to take responsibility for her actions.

So in your eyes at least those women, which are raped would be allowed to abort?

oh, btw.
as for Abortion being an major chirurgical procedure.

That may be true for older methods, but in the present we´ve got a pill names myfegyne or RU486.
The woman takes the pill (in Combination with Prostaglandin) and the fetus is just washed away with the next menstruation bleeding.
It can be taken til the 9th week of pregnancy, is already in widespread use in a wide range of countries, and has far less complications than any chirurgical Abortion.

As I heard, Anti-Chaoice movements in Canada have succeeded in keeping the pill out of the country despite the support of medical Associations and Province governments for RU486

tandeetaylor · January 16, 2003, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18 Sex can result in pregnancy, even with condoms and other forms of precautions. So long as the woman is not forced to have sex, she has to take responsibility for her actions.

Hi. I believe this should be a Virigins By Choice Argument only. Are you?

Quote:

The unborn child has nowhere else to go, while it is developing in the womb. Therefore, it is the duty of the mother to care for her child, at least until the child is born. Then, the care can be turned over to another couple if the mother feels she cannot take care of the child.

I love it how men, who have never been pregnant, can argue endlessly about a woman's responsibility to carry pregnancies to term. Just sit back. Easy easy easy. Being pregnant is a major commitment, it forces many changes, most of which are unpleasant. The one pleasant is connecting with your unborn child, which, if you plan to give up your baby for adoption, would also be unpleasant.

Oh, and in case you do believe rape victims should be allowed to abort-- I believe this would result in a nightmarish situation of false accusations. And true accusations which unfortunately are difficult to prove resulting in honest women not being granted this right and forced to carry a product of rape...

Chris 62 · January 16, 2003, 03:26

First, I will say I'm pro-choice, and always have been.

Next, I laugh at you Bush bashers, it will be fun watching you attack him the next 5 years or so.

Mindless name-calling, and you wonder why Democrats are losing in this country.
Hint: THEY DO THE SAME THING.

Bad news boys and girls, he gets an opinion, just like you do, and there is nothing "hypocritical" about his postions, they are remarkably consistant.
He's a Born again Christian, that favors right to life.
Consistant.
He's a Republican that favors strong national defense.
Consistant.
He is a conservative that favors a hard line on criminal punishment.
Consistant.

Maybe you should all break out the "He's a puppet for big oil" stichk again, that's always good for laughs.

Ben Kenobi · January 16, 2003, 04:10

I'm not going to defend abortion in the case of rape.

Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

We should offer all our support to any woman who has become pregnant through rape, to counsel her and to help her through these difficult times. Some woman have remarked that their child was the only good thing to come out of the rape. For those who do not wish to keep their child, adoption is available.

I know this is not popular, but we do not fix a wrong by committing another wrong.

tandee-

Men should pay child support. A man is supposed to support his partner, especially when she is pregnant. If it takes 2 people to make a baby, both have responsibility to ensure that it is properly cared for.

Am I a virgin by choice? Yes, until I get married.
Look at some of my other posts. The argument is by no means limited to virgins, all I say here is that if you are going to have sex, just be ready to take care of a baby. Both the man and the woman.

Proteus,
regarding RU486-

http://dianedew.com/ru486.htm

"Dr. Turshen examined the research findings of French studies, in which 50% of patients using RU-486 suffered complications ranging anywhere from nausea to bleeding for up to 40 days. "

"One death has been reported, supposedly from the prostaglandin (PG) administered with mifepristone. And three women have suffered heart attacks. Numerous others have had to undergo blood transfusions, or dilatation and curettage, to remove remaining placental fragments."

"Abortion with RU-486 is a lengthy procedure (three to five visits required) that cannot be kept confidential, she said. The patient cannot plan where the fetus will be expelled -- in the office, in the hospital, or at home."

Boris Godunov · January 16, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
"I'm pro-choice, obiwan, if that's what you're asking. I whole-heartedly believe human life is sacred. "

-Boris

What counts as human life then? Why don't unborn children count as well?

The development of the brain and "sentience" is what I would use as the defining factor, which occures about midterm in the pregnancy. When the "atma" (as loinburger referred to it) is present, then I think it counts as a viable human. That's why I don't think late-term abortions should be done except to protect the life of the mother (which is pretty much the only instances in which they are done today). Let's face it--if you've been pregnant for 5 months, you've had enough time to decide if you want the baby or not.

Quote:

"This proclamation is a political stunt to pander to the Christian conservatives. "

Perhaps, but I'll take a National Sancitity of Life day anyways. Clinton would never have announced something to this effect.

Perhaps because Clinton had no reason to pander to the Christian Right. At any rate, I won't support an empty proclamation designed to pander to a political group, especially one with which I have a lot of problems.

Quote:

"he openly mocked a woman about to be executed in Texas."

Didn't hear about this. When did this happen?

Carla Faye Tucker. She was on death row, and asked for clemency. Bush denied her clemency, and in a press conference proceeded to mock her request, saying in a high pitched voice "please don't kill me."

It was probably the most disgusting displays by a politician I had ever seen, and was one of the moments that defined my dislike of Bush as a person, not just as a public figure. It was inexcusable behavior on the part of a state governor.

Zkribbler · January 16, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I do not see how it is not murder after brainwaves exist
Jon Miller

Hmm, I haven't seen the brainwave standard set forth before as the point at which human life begins. I've seen the at-conception standard of the right wing and the viability standard of Roe v. Wade but I've never been convinced by either of those approaches. But brainwaves...hmm.

I'll have to think about this.

Ben Kenobi · January 16, 2003, 15:04

"The development of the brain and "sentience" is what I would use as the defining factor, which occures about midterm in the pregnancy."

"That's why I don't think late-term abortions should be done except to protect the life of the mother (which is pretty much the only instances in which they are done today). "

Nope- sorry Boris.

You are off on your fetal development.
Sometime after week 8, but before week 12, the nervous system of the fetus is responsive. I feel this counts at sentience- so to make sure you are not killing a person, you would need to ban all abortions after 8 weeks, unless the mother's life is in danger. This is why some abortionists recommend using anaestetic to avoid unnecessary pain for the unborn child during abortion.

In any case, why does sentience determine your personhood? Do I have a right to kill you while you are sleeping, just because you are not currently sentient?

As for late-term abortions,

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

Sinapus · January 16, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
First, I will say I'm pro-choice, and always have been.

As am I. (Better get that out before the usual assumptions about me based on my other viewpoints.)

Quote:

Maybe you should all break out the "He's a puppet for big oil" stichk again, that's always good for laughs.

But... but, they're doing so well with the "he's an idiot" claim.

Cyclotron · January 16, 2003, 21:52

Abortion due to rape, at least, seems unopposable. Think for example if you were abducted during the night and anesthetized, only to discover that you were lying in a hospital hooked up to some guy who had kidney failure. The man would die without kidneys, and (assuming dialysis/transplants are not an option) his only hope at life is to share somebody else's kidneys.

The man very well may have a "right to life," but his right to live does not give him access to your body; most people would reject that the man's right to life conferrs an obligation. It may be generous to let him use your kidneys, but it is certainly your choice and not his.

In this way, it seems obvious that abortions should at least be allowed in cases of rape, because the fetus' right to life does not convey an obligation to the mother.

Of course, once it becomes consensual this argument loses validity, but it seems morally bankrupt to say that rape victims should be prohibited form abortion.

Demerzel · January 16, 2003, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
I'm not going to defend abortion in the case of rape.

Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

We should offer all our support to any woman who has become pregnant through rape, to counsel her and to help her through these difficult times. Some woman have remarked that their child was the only good thing to come out of the rape. For those who do not wish to keep their child, adoption is available.

I know this is not popular, but we do not fix a wrong by committing another wrong.

You've got to be f*cking kidding me. a woman who has been raped should be counselled in the hope that she will bear the child to fruition? If she has been raped and impregnated, then I'm pretty sure the woman will not want the child and is perfectly entitled to abort. How you can even remotely compare the traumatic life shattering event of being raped to having your car damaged is beyond me. The "person", i.e. foetus is not innocent as it has been created from an act of evil. A woman who is forcedly reminded of that act every single day for 9 months is being tortured. She can't excise the psychological trauma if she has to face it every day.

Btw, you sound like a bloody politican with your second paragraph, the words you say are like a speech, they sound hollow and meaningless.

orange · January 16, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18 Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

No, it's not nearly the same thing. If you were forcefully given a child to raise for at very least 9 months against your will, you should not be required to keep it. It isn't even a life, arguably, until it can live on its own outside the womb. Until that time (3rd trimester) it is not a life, but a parasite. I know that may offend some people, but by definition that's what it is - it can't live on its own.

I am against 3rd trimester abortions for this reason, but prior to that it's FAIR GAME in my opinion.

And if the above is really the way you feel, Obiwan, why do you support capital punishment (if you do - I think I remember you saying you do)

What does it solve? Nothing. What's a worse punishment? Making them live in jail for the rest of their lives. Will killing the murderer bring that person back - no. Pointless.

Ben Kenobi · January 17, 2003, 00:42

Glad I waited to reply to all this criticism on not allowing abortion in the case of rape.

"It isn't even a life, arguably, until it can live on its own outside the womb."

orange, viability has nothing to do with the fetus, but everything to do with technology. With better neonatal care, we are now able to save babies as young as 20-21 weeks of age. It used to be at the end of the second trimester, around 26 weeks of age.

Also, are you viable at the north pole? Are you completely independent of other people?

orange - as for capital punishment, read my disclaimer. I'm a pacifist who does NOT support capital punishment even though I sometimes argue as a devil's advocate.

"The "person", i.e. foetus is not innocent as it has been created from an act of evil. "

-Demerzal

Is the child to blame for the sins of the father? Last time I checked, we don't stone women for being raped. Why should the child be different?

You assume that abortion is without consequences as well. Abortion can cause a great deal of harm, physical and psychological. Are you willing to counsel this women to abort her child even if she might be worse off afterwards?

BTW, politicians make you believe what they are saying.

That being said, if you know someone who needs help with keeping her baby, I'll help where I can. I know lots of people who she can get in touch with as well. Many generous folks out there, believe it or not.

cyclotron

"the fetus' right to life does not convey an obligation to the mother."

Do you have a responsibility to your parents? Do you have an obligation to respect them and to take care of them if they need help even though you had no choice in the matter?

If we accept your statement as true, you have just destroyed what a family is all about. Obligations and responsibilities arise from the fetus' right to life. Every right has a corresponding responsibility.

If there was another option for the mother, an incubator that could develop a child apart from the mother's womb, then pregnancy would not confer a duty on the mother. However, since we don't have said incubator, the child has no other place to grow or to develop.

In order to improve the kidney example, you'd have to change things around, like saying that the man is only hooked up to you for 9 months.

Also, the man would have to be really small so that you could still walk around and work. Some women do work during pregnancy, you know.

It's not a sentence to bed for nine months.

Boris Godunov · January 17, 2003, 00:42

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Nope- sorry Boris.

You are off on your fetal development.
Sometime after week 8, but before week 12, the nervous system of the fetus is responsive. I feel this counts at sentience- so to make sure you are not killing a person, you would need to ban all abortions after 8 weeks, unless the mother's life is in danger. This is why some abortionists recommend using anaestetic to avoid unnecessary pain for the unborn child during abortion.

I think it is you who are a little off here. While electric impulses can be detected sometimes as early as 6 weeks, that is not remotely the same as brainwave activity nor remotely comparable to nervous systom neural activity.

At anyrate, I don't think the fetus is classifiable as human until the atman is developed, and I am doubtful that happens until late in the second trimester at the earliest.

Quote:

In any case, why does sentience determine your personhood? Do I have a right to kill you while you are sleeping, just because you are not currently sentient?

Being asleep does not render one non-sentient. Find a better example.

Quote:

As for late-term abortions,

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

Well, the problem here is it starts at 16 weeks, which is under midterm. I wouldn't classify an abortion as truly late term until the 24th week or beyond, and this doesn't break down the numbers into the weeks beyond that. I'm very certain, given statistics I've seen, that abortions beyond the 24th week are quite small as a percentage of abortions as a whole.

That being said, I am not opposed to such abortions being strictly conditional on the health of the mother. The problem is that every bill the Republicans have offered to end late term abortions have not allowed for the mother's health to be considered, or have been worded in such a way as to potentially tie the hands of doctor for earlier procedures. If they tried for once to not play politics and present a bill banning late term abortions that allowed exceptions for the health of the mother, I guarantee you it would have passed and be law now. But instead they get to have their bill defeated and strut before pro-lifers as if they were staunch defenders of the prolife movement, while in reality they have used the issue as a political stunt.

Such stunts make me ill, just like Bush signing this two-faced proclamation.

Urban Ranger · January 17, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
His argument centers on the distinction between innocent human persons, and those who are not. One can forfeit one's right to life, through killing someone else. Unborn children are by definition innocent, since they have not had a chance to hurt other people. Therefore, one should protect innocent human life, while allowing those who murder others to be punished.

Yes, embryoes and foetuses may be humans but they are not necessarily human beings. My skin cells are human too when you get right down to it.

Urban Ranger · January 17, 2003, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
However, we're getting off topic here - the real point of this thread was to laugh at GWB's hypocrisy re: anti-choice, but pro-death penalty and pro-war - and not to rehash the abortion argument.

Oh, I think we laughed at that before already.

Urban Ranger · January 17, 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
In any case, why does sentience determine your personhood? Do I have a right to kill you while you are sleeping, just because you are not currently sentient?

I am pretty sure a person who is dreaming still has the self-awareness.

Anyway, if sentience doesn't determine personhood, what does? DNA? In this case, would cutting myself considered as murder?

Ben Kenobi · January 17, 2003, 01:00

Boris-
Even so, the unborn child is only temporarily non-sentient. The unborn child has the inherent capacity to attain sentience, and is therefore a human person as opposed to a cat or a dog. You once were a zygote, a fetus inside your mother's womb. Your definition has this disjoint where the unborn child is not human but later becomes one.

If it's not human in the womb, then what else could it be? Human beings produce other human beings.

I'm leery about the health exception for one reason.
Most times, the definition of health involves the UN definition which includes mental health. Doe v Bolton confirmed this perspective, therefore, all abortions were justified because pregnancy has a psychological effect. This is why I prefer life-threatening as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or other rare cases.

"I'm very certain, given statistics I've seen, that abortions beyond the 24th week are quite small as a percentage of abortions as a whole."

True, but the point in question is why are late-term abortions done. You have not shown that late-term abortions are done solely for the health of the mother as opposed to more material concerns.