h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When I say the unborn child has "superior rights, I am referring to the manner in which various bodies decide to overrule the rights of the mother in insisting that she must carry the foetus to term.

As for the experience issue, of course we are not talking about a foetus beyond 12 weeks - that's why abortion is not legal beyond that stage. But the foetus we are talking about is basically a lump of cells.

>>It is merely the potential for life - it has not actually begun to live.<<

Please explain.

I elaborated on this later in my post, saying that the foetus is dependent upon its carrier for all of the agents that sustain it. The foetus at this stage is merely the dividing products of fertilisation between the gametes. If carried to term, this lump of cells could develop into a baby which can survive independently. However, until differentiation occurs in the body's cells, the foetus is quite literally only potential life - its tissues are generic ones - a good analogy would be the foetus as a sheet of paper, compared to the mother or any other viable human being as a book.

" This has been covered. The mother's body prepares itself to carry the child and helps it along. It is
incorrect to say that the fetus forces the mother to give it what it wants. This would display abilities
that I am surprised you would ascribe to it."

I was perfectly serious. In immunological terms, the foetus is a parasite - the mother has to suppress her immune system in order to prevent her body from rejecting this foreign body. Look at the problems of rhesus positive foetuses carried by rhesus negative mothers.

"Note that the zygote/morula is not implanted in the mother's womb and can live outside her body in a
laboratory environment." - so could cells scraped out from the inside of my cheek, but like the zygote, they can only survive for a few days in these artificial conditions.

Another thing I would say is that I could not bear to give up my child for adoption, whereas I am prepared to undergo an abortion. After nine months I would find it incredibly hard to part with this actual life, whereas earlier in the term it is merely potential. I find it hard to see how some can argue that they are acting for the happiness of the child when they suggest that unwanted pregnancies should be carried to term and fostered. It is now a legal right that children can trace their birth parents, and it is terrible for a child to have to confront the fact that they were an unwanted pregnancy, particularly if the mother felt capable of keeping later children.

I would be willing to compromise to allow abortions untill the beginning of the Second Trimester for most of the very reasons stated (not all ). What I am really abhorant of is partial birth abortions, I hope we all can agree that that is horrid. The child is almost ready to be born, almost fully developed, passes all the tests for "life"(eg respond to stimuli) and it get's a hole knocked in it's head and then is dragged out of the mother's body... (weird smilie huh? means ill I was looking for more the puke type sick but ohh well)

i'm not aware of anywhere you can obtain an abortion legally past the first trimester with the exception of the pregnancy being a threat to the mother's life and it being the mother's decision at that. i was under the impression we had been discussing early term abortions all along.

So was I.

St Emily:

>>When I say the unborn child has "superior rights, I am referring to the manner in which various bodies decide to overrule the rights of the mother in insisting that she must carry the foetus to term.<<

Ok. You see I would not call these cases a superior right. I believe that the unborn child has a right to life just like the born child.

>>As for the experience issue, of course we are not talking about a foetus beyond 12 weeks - that's why abortion is not legal beyond that stage. But the foetus we are talking about is basically a lump of cells.<<

First of all, in Texas and the rest of the US it is legal beyond the first trimester. Row V. Wade says that states cannot restrict abortion access during the first trimester. For each successive trimester the states are given more regulatory control. Where do you live?

Second, a fetus has every organ in place by the 8th week and can even move muscles. I found this from a very good scientific site, but every post that I quoted it seems to have been deleted. I hate these new house rules.

>>If carried to term, this lump of cells could develop into a baby which can survive independently.<<

By "if" you seem to mean if its mother does not kill it. Your definition of life seems to be independence. I do not share in your belief.

>>a good analogy would be the foetus as a sheet of paper, compared to the mother or any other viable human being as a book.<<

Can a sheet of paper turn into a book? No. A sheet of paper is therefore worthless when compaired to a book. A zygote under proper conditions will turn into a viable human being (note the qualifier "viable"). The zygote has everything it needs except time and nourishment to develop. It is more like a seed that has been planted. If I held trees in reverence for what they are not what they do, I would protect them no matter what their size. The problem with analogies like this is that it ignores humanity itself.

>>the foetus is a parasite - the mother has to suppress her immune system in order to prevent her body from rejecting this
foreign body.<<

Does your body do the same for "other parasites"? No. A parasite must fight the immune system or find a way around it.

>>Look at the problems of rhesus positive foetuses carried by rhesus negative mothers.<<

You could also look at ectopic pregnancies. These are unfortunate circumstances that don't relate to a healthy pregnancy. I do not believe that your situation must result in the death of the child though.

If you see the unborn children as a parasite, why does this change after the first trimester?

>>Another thing I would say is that I could not bear to give up my child for adoption<<

That's your decision. It is an incredable decision. I don't see how it could be terrible for the child. I have meet probably a dozen adopted children in my life and all have been grateful for their life.

>>whereas I am prepared to undergo an abortion.<<

You could be prepared to kill an adult out of cold blood. This would not make it right.

>>it is terrible for a child to have to confront the fact that they were an unwanted pregnancy, particularly if the mother felt capable of keeping later children.<<

Do you have any facts to back up this claim? I meet a woman who was born in Africa and adopted by a family in the US. She went back to see her birth mother and she said that she was and is very grateful for the sacrifice her mother gave her.

Yowuzupman:

>>What I am really abhorant of is partial birth abortions, I hope we all can agree that that is horrid.<<

What I hate is the fact that it is all driven by money.

>>The child is almost ready to be born, almost fully developed, passes all the tests for "life"(eg respond to stimuli) and it get's a hole knocked in it's head and then is dragged out of the mother's body.<<

The "docters" need the child to be that way to get good organs. They are worth quite a bit to research. It is also terrible for the woman because the child is delivered in the breech position (feet first). There are many more "safer" methods, but they don't give you an intact baby.

broelan:

>>i'm not aware of anywhere you can obtain an abortion legally past the first trimester with the exception of the pregnancy being a threat to the mother's life and it being the mother's decision at that.<<

Just go to Yahoo and search for "second trimester abortion" I got a list of places that offer it. Here are some examples:

Kansas:

Women's Health Care Services, P.A. - specializing in second trimester elective and second/third trimester therapeutic abortion care.
note: "therapeutic" does not mean it is just for physical health

Illinois:

Hope Clinic for Women - provides abortions in the first and second trimester of unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, offering counseling for early and late abortion, and Methotrexate or RU486.

Texas:

West Side Clinic - confidential first and second trimester abortions.

Unfortunately there are many more.

>>i was under the impression we had been discussing early term abortions all along.<<

Not exclusively.

"Can a sheet of paper turn into a book? No. A sheet of paper is therefore worthless when compaired to a book. A zygote under proper conditions will turn into a viable human being (note the qualifier "viable"). The zygote has everything it needs except time and nourishment to develop. It is more like a seed that has been planted." - The problem with YOUR analogy is that you seem to think that the zygote has a large amount of independence. A seed can draw all it needs from ambient water and nutrients in the soil. A zygote is not planted in the ground... it is planted in a HUMAN. It must take the nutrients it requires from a HUMAN. It is more like a tree fungus than a tree. It uses nutrients the human was going to use for its own benefit, and does considerable damage to its host in the process.

A page is a potential book. But it requires the lavish attention of a writer to nurture it into the book it can become. This is *very* much like what happens to a zygote, and so this analogy is a good one.

i was going to mention something along those lines as well, sellers, you put it much better than i could have.

and i, like emily, could not give a child up for adoption either, altho i would adopt. but the government doesn't think i make enough money to give an unwanted child a loving home.

i was unaware of the availability of the later term abortions, and while i wouldn't really say i advocate them, and i certainly could not obtain one myself, as i was reading your list the following thought occured to me: the women who use these services, what kind of mothers would they be if they didn't abort? the train of thought resembled something like this: what kind of woman would be capable of going thru with this? and regarding the circumstances surrounding her decision, if she decided the other way, how would they affect her ideas on parentintg?

you never did answer my question about the book.

I have a question, Nosretep, if you will. You're a pro-lifer, and your official stance is
because you believe that abortion is the murder of a child. Well, here's a question for you.
Why is a human life more important than another life? Life is death. Even vegetarians kill
in order to survive.

But that's all beside to point. Why does the unborn child have rights when they infract
rights of the mother? When a person deprives you of rights, they always go to prison.
Why should it be different because that person is inside you? Having a baby can deprive you
of your right to education, and an independant life, if you so desire one.

In Canada, abortion is illegal the instant the foetus can respond to stimuli. At least, in Ontario.

That's interesting, actually, I did not know that foetuses could do that in the 8th week. But, the question is, Does
it's brain function, or is it just a sporadically driven biological machine?

If a thing cannot survive dependantly on the functions of it's own body, (that does not mean gathering
food/water, just breathing and having an active nervous system.) Then that thing is less alive
then the beef cattle you probably like to eat. I do too, but I'm not hypocritical about life.

The parasitism of the foetus does not stop after birth. It does not stop through childhood and adolescence, it does not stop through
adulthood. Human beings are social parasites, living of the host of our world, and doing immense damage while we do.
I know that isn't relevant, but I'm just saying, parasitism is a fairly broad concept.

You alluded to killing and adult as equal to having an abortion, where actually, you would have to say,
"You would be willing to unplug a legally dead person from a life support machine in cold blood." To
make an accurate metaphor.

I'm not touching later trimester abortions with a fifty foot pole, because that will always come down to,
"Who's rights are paramount? The living mother, or the sentient Baby?" I still tend to side with
the mother, but It's a less savoury topic to argue.

Colonel Sellers:

>>The problem with YOUR analogy is that you seem to think that the zygote has a large amount of independence.<<

It does.It is just very fragile.

>>A seed can draw all it needs from ambient water and nutrients in the soil.<<

In a round about way this is taking it from its "parent" tree if it grows close to the fully grown tree.

>>A zygote is not planted in the ground... it is planted in a HUMAN.<<

I won't argue there.

>>It is more like a tree fungus than a tree.<<

Is a fungus a tree? No. It is an entirely different organism. That's the difference.

>>It uses nutrients the human was going to use for its own benefit, and does considerable damage to its host in the process.<<

But the said human's body willingly provides those nutrients.

>>A page is a potential book. But it requires the lavish attention of a writer to nurture it into the book it can become.<<

If the writer was a book I would agree to your analogy, but if a book were an organism then the writer would again be a member of a different species.

st. broelan:

>>but the government doesn't think i make enough money to give an unwanted child a loving home.<<

That is sad. People think that you need a lot of money to have or provide happiness. Perhaps that is one central aspect the abortion debate.

>>what kind of woman would be capable of going thru with this?<<

Most of the time the woman just doesn't know what she is doing and as a result goes through massive depression later. A young woman simply sees that there is something wrong with her body and she wants to correct it. She feels shame and fear and can't think rationally. There is no reason why a woman who has an abortion cannot later have children (at least not psycologically (excuse the spelling)).

>>and regarding the circumstances surrounding her decision, if she decided the other way, how would they affect her ideas on parentintg?<<

Well if she decides not to kill her child I would say that she would be a better parent to that child.

>>you never did answer my question about the book.<<

What was that?

Clarke:

I have to go, but hopefully by tomorrow I will have more time to respond.

I've only read the past couple of posts (life is far too short) but i have a couple of things to say:

i think what you're talking about is viability and potentiality; at a certain stage of development the foetus becomes a viable human being, before that it just a little bundle of cells, that can not live outwith the mother. i don't get sentimental when i cut my finger nails, nor would i get sentimental over a cancerous tumour.

but i think most important, and this is something that cannot be legislated for or against is the mother's attitude towards the foetus. I had an abortion when i was 19 and stupid, its not something i'm proud of but i'm not ashamed of it either - in fact it saved my life, it was while i was in there that i discovered it was ectopic. anyway how i felt towards the pregnancy was crucial. at no point did i ever think that this bundle of cells was a baby - it didn't have any potentiality to me, in any way shape or form. but i know of mothers who know the instant they concieve that there's a life growing inside them. no woman makes the choice to have an abortion lightly, its not something you decide to do on a whim, its consequences will be with you for the rest of your life.

>It does, it is just very fragile< I don't understand, Nosretep, why you believe this. The foetus does not actually have any individuality. It cannot live at all independant of the mother, and is reliant on the mother for everything. Oxygen, nourishment, blood flow, etc etc.

<but said persons body willingly supplies those nutrients< Not necessarily, nosretep. If the woman does not wish to be pregnant, and is forced to by the illegality of abortion, then it is not a willing donation. The baby is taking by force, The force the law supplies it with, the nutrients, proteins, time, and money of the mother, not to mention altering the life of the mother significantly.

<that is sad, people think that you need a lot of money to provide happiness.< again, not necessarily. What does cost a lot of money is prescriptions, and (if you're american,) healthcare and schools. Buying your child clothes costs money, and feeding your child costs money too.

>most of the time the woman doesn't...< well, I can argue with that. You have not taken a poll of the entire population of women who have aborted a foetus, so you really can't draw conclusions, even if it IS based on a small sample group.

>if she decides not to kill her child, I would say she is a better parent to her child.< Well, that depends on your perception of life. If you see life as I do, then not necessarily, again.If the mother tortures her child, and "disciplines" him/her by say, scalding him/her with boiling water, (to take a chapter from a fairly sickening trial of an abusive mother,) I would say that no, their life is worse than if they had been aborted, and had simply never existed or realized their consciousness.

Nosretep, I hope you have time to answer my two posts. I look forward to reading yours.

>It does, it is just very fragile< I don't understand, Nosretep, why you believe this. The foetus does not actually have any individuality. It cannot live at all independant of the mother, and is reliant on the mother for everything. Oxygen, nourishment, blood flow, etc etc.

<but said persons body willingly supplies those nutrients< Not necessarily, nosretep. If the woman does not wish to be pregnant, and is forced to by the illegality of abortion, then it is not a willing donation. The baby is taking by force, The force the law supplies it with, the nutrients, proteins, time, and money of the mother, not to mention altering the life of the mother significantly.

<that is sad, people think that you need a lot of money to provide happiness.< again, not necessarily. What does cost a lot of money is prescriptions, and (if you're american,) healthcare and schools. Buying your child clothes costs money, and feeding your child costs money too.

>most of the time the woman doesn't...< well, I can argue with that. You have not taken a poll of the entire population of women who have aborted a foetus, so you really can't draw conclusions, even if it IS based on a small sample group.

>if she decides not to kill her child, I would say she is a better parent to her child.< Well, that depends on your perception of life. If you see life as I do, then not necessarily, again.If the mother tortures her child, and "disciplines" him/her by say, scalding him/her with boiling water, (to take a chapter from a fairly sickening trial of an abusive mother,) I would say that no, their life is worse than if they had been aborted, and had simply never existed or realized their consciousness.

Nosretep, I hope you have time to answer my two posts. I look forward to reading yours.

W****E:

>before that it just a little bundle of cells, that can not live outwith the mother. i don't get sentimental when i cut my finger nails, nor would i get sentimental over a cancerous tumour.<<

Your diction is rather typical. What do you mean by "just"? You are "just" a bunch of cells. I am "just" a bunch of cells. When the zygote first divides the cells are in constant communication with each other. I personally know two biologists. One specializes in zoology and teaches Biology classes, and the other specializes in bacteria. Both believe because of facts that a zygote is human. You do not believe so because of your prior commitment to "reproductive rights". I don't weep over finger nails either, but a finger nail is not human. Find me a biologist who says a finger nail is human and you will show me someone who is insane.

but i think most important, and this is something that cannot be legislated for or
against is the mother's attitude towards the foetus. I had an abortion when i was 19
and stupid, its not something i'm proud of but i'm not ashamed of it either - in fact it
saved my life, it was while i was in there that i discovered it was ectopic. anyway how
i felt towards the pregnancy was crucial.

>>at no point did i ever think that this bundle of cells was a baby - it didn't have any potentiality to me, in any way shape or form.<<

What if a mother does not think of their newborn child as a baby and decides to kill it? Will you just say that is her choice? When talking about known FACTS, opinion is worthless. In our society opinion can only determine how facts are applied. Give me facts that show an unborn child is not human and we can discuss them.

>>no woman makes the choice to have an abortion lightly, its not something you decide to do on a whim<<

If only that were the case. I have heard women use the word "stupid" in description of theirself before an abortion just like you did. Sometimes we make decisions or are pressed into decisions without thinking. By the way, who told you your pregnancy was ectopic?

Clarke:

>>The foetus does not actually have any individuality. It cannot live at all independant of the mother, and is reliant on the mother for everything. Oxygen, nourishment, blood flow, etc etc.<<

I say again, the mother's blood never flows in the unborn child. The blood of the unborn baby comes within a few cells of the mother's in the placenta where it picks up oxygen and nourishment. The unborn child always has its own blood flow. It also has its own metabolism and carries out resperation at the cellular level just like you and me.

>><but said persons body willingly supplies those nutrients< Not necessarily, nosretep.<<

Note that I said "body", not just "person." The woman's body willingly gives the unborn child nutrients and sets in motion certain physiological changes to even later provide for the child. (birthing and breast-feeding among them)

>>The baby is taking by force, The force the law supplies it with, the nutrients, proteins, time, and money of the mother, not to
mention altering the life of the mother significantly.<<

Your argument has at its base the notion that the woman has a right to kill her unborn child and that the law is what hampers her. I do not believe this, and we can dance around all day skirting this issue with tangents and avoid the heart of the matter if you wish.

>>their life is worse than if they had been aborted, and had simply never existed or realized their consciousness.<<

If a woman does that to her child, then she lacks all humanity. First of all, you can't go back in time and abort children and you don't have perfect foresight. How could a woman reason that she will treat her child poorly on purpose and therefore she should kill it while she has the chance? To me this looks like a woman looking for an escape. Telling women with low incomes or other social considerations that she is unfit to have a child borders on what China or Hitler do/did.

I will respond more later.

>>Telling women with low incomes or other social considerations that she is unfit to have a child<<

that is not the case. it is telling women with low incomes or other social considerations that it is their perogative to decide for themselves whether or not they would be fit parents and act on that decision.
it is also not just low incomes, but also mentally unstable women, young women (girls can become pregnant as soon as they begin menstruating, some girls as early as ten or eleven years old), women who have other priorities, women in abusive situations, women who are abusers, rape victims, incest victims, and so on.

and the book i mentioned was: a child called 'it' by dave pelzer. the question was: have you read it?

more later....

*Both believe because of facts that a zygote is a human.* Please furnish aforementioned facts.

You had an abortion, Nosretep? hmm... I suddenly don't feel qualified to debate this with you.

*The mothers blood never flows into the foetus* Well, I must say, that's not important. Nutrients and oxygen from the blood of the mother are still diffused into the cells of the foetus. Ergo, the foetus still lives off the mother.

Yes, I'll agree the body supplies the foetus with nutrients, and that the foetus does not have to take the nutrients, but the person who has command of the body may not be so willing, and it is the person who makes the choice.


*And avoid the heart of the matter, if you wish.* This is the heart of the matter. Does the mother have the right to abort a foetus? That's the only question. Does she? why? why not?

*if a woman does that to her child...* that's not what I was replying to. I was replying to your statement that any life was better for the child than to be aborted.

Ultimately, I believe any person has the right to refuse anything that will affect their life, simply because, it is their life. IF that includes getting rid of a potential life that is not yet alive, and cannot sense stimuli, then I view it as little worse than killing a vegetable. To return to a metaphor I'd used, IF I could pull the plug on a braindead man or woman or child to increase the quality of life for somene, I would, because my definition of life is not complete dependency.

clarke

nosretep has not had an abortion, i believe that would be a medical impossibility (or were you being pointed? sorry) w****e said that she has had an abortion in the past.

nosretep, when i commented earlier on the parenting skills of a woman who would consider a late term abortion, this is more or less what i was thinking: if a woman has *full knowledge* of the development of the fetus inside her at a later stage of pregnancy (say, third trimester) and is distraught enough over the pregnancy that she would consider having an abortion at that point, if she elected not to and her anxiety level remained high, what kind of parent would she be? while it's true that she may be perfectly fine after giving birth, it is also true that having a small child that makes demands of her that her body does not automatically provide would increase an already too high anxiety level, causing that person to be a danger to a child without even realizing that what she is doing is wrong. this would constitute child abuse and endangerment, depending on the mental state of the mother it might even result in the death of the child anyway.

on a similar vein, if a woman discovers she is pregnant and knows that she is unfit to be a parent, that it is highly likely that she will be abusive and a danger to a child, shouldn't she have the right to prevent that from happening? i would think abortion would be favorable to deliberate miscarriage.

...Yes, I was being sarcastic. Good old sarcasm, the tool of the small and small minded alike.

sorry, sometimes it's difficult to recognize levity in these types of discussions. please excuse my obtuseness.

I am short on time, so I will not resond to everything.

Clarke:

>>*Both believe because of facts that a zygote is a human.* Please furnish aforementioned facts.<<

Well, the zoology biologist has said that all life is made of cells. Therefore if something has cells it is alive. Also from a cellular perspective, he has said that the job of a cell is to make proteins. It is the proteins that determine everything, so sence a zygote has the information to make all necessary proteins and carries that out, it would be alive and human. The other bases his belief more specifically on just the overwhelming complexity and uniqueness of a zygote. Both of them look at the small things, you are looking at the larger things. They see life as a biological process, you see it as a benefit to society. Their perspective is scientific, yours is more phylosophical.

>>You had an abortion, Nosretep?<<

Where did I say I had? And what point is that?

>>Nutrients and oxygen from the blood of the mother are still diffused into the cells of the foetus. Ergo, the foetus still lives off the mother.<<

Where does the mother get the nutrients? From her environment. She is living off of the environment and is totally dependent on it. Does this make her less alive? No. I can't understand your logic. How does dependency invalidate life?

>>Yes, I'll agree the body supplies the foetus with nutrients, and that the foetus does not have to take the nutrients, but the person who has command of the body may not be so willing, and it is the person who makes the choice.<<

There are things we do involuntarily (heart beat, pupil dialation, digestion, cellular resperation, the list goes on and on). We really have very little choice. How do we have command of our bodies in the way you mean?

>>Ultimately, I believe any person has the right to refuse anything that will affect their life, simply because, it is their life.<<

Ok then, stop your heart. You have to force your body to do that. Get rid of the bacteria in your stomach. You have control over very few things about your life. You have no "right" to just go around changing things. We are not gods.

A war will affect your life. Just try to refuse an invading army or a bullet because it affects your life.

It's a bit of a fatuous comment to say "okay, stop your heart" - that's a completely separate issue. I had a pregnancy test in November. I remember thinking on the way about what I would do if I was pregnant, and my boyfriend and I had discussed it before - I would have an abortion. I was then seventeen, about to do my A-levels, and having a child would have meant that I would have had to give up my education and hopes of university, as well as quite possibly having to go my own way and support a child on non-existent funds - my family are Chinese and the concept of my having sex at seventeen has caused enormous routs, let alone having a child.