Welcome to Gaia! ::

Because in 9 months, it WILL be a person who can think and feel. You seem to imply or imagine that once pregnant, the woman is stuck with a fetus for 9 months and then it just goes away. It is unfeeling now, yes. But in a similar way, so is a person who is asleep. Why wake a sleeping person if carbon monoxide leaks into their home? They won't feel anything and they are currently unaware.

Do you know why they have value? Because when they wake up, in the future, they will be aware. They were also aware in the past, which makes them seperate from feti, but only because feti were mentally incapable of having experiences before they were created.

An acorn is not a tree. A foetus may be a baby in nine months, but for the time being it is still a foetus. One day I'll be a pensioner but I'm not currently treated as one.

Sleeping is a very different unconscious state from a foetus in development. A person who is asleep can usually be woken up easily. A foetus has to develop.


If you're fixed on this sleeping person similar to foetus thing . . . if you find someone uninvited sleeping in your house, you have the right to chuck them out, correct? And I mean someone you don't know from Adam, just a complete stranger. You wouldn't want to wait until they woke up to get them out, if you wanted them to leave your house.

In roughly three years, I WILL be old enough to drink legally. Does that mean I should be allowed into bars and served alcohol now? I mean, I will be 21 eventually. Why can't I be treated like I'm 21 now?
Why can't I start getting my social security checks? I'll eventually be old enough, so why wait?
A fetus isn't a person who can think and feel yet. Why should it be treated like one just because it will be one someday?


That's what happens, right? The fetus sits around in the woman's uterus, and then it goes away one day. Whether due to abortion or birth, problem solved. The event that this discussion is focused on is over.
Sure, there's a baby if the fetus is born and not aborted, but that's a different event/problem. This discussion is focused on the fetus and the pregnancy.


I hate when pro-lifers say the fetus will suffer, because then I have to say that it won't suffer at all because it can't think or feel. And then other pro-lifers assume that by saying that, I'm justifying abortion on the grounds that the fetus can't think and won't feel it, and then along comes the "a sleeping/comatose person can't think or feel; why don't we kill all sleeping/comatose people?" bit.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm countering sachiko's statement that the fetus will suffer. I'm not saying that abortion is OK because the fetus can't feel anything.


They don't have value because when they wake up they'll be aware. A comatose person may never wake up, but they still have value and people will still make an effort to keep them alive.
They have value because they were already aware and are born people.
Has a fetus ever been aware? Has a fetus been born? It's only valuable because it's made of human DNA and in the future could possibly become a born and aware person. A born and aware person is already born and aware, and they have human DNA, and they still have as much potential as the fetus to be/do something great.

It has value, to me and all lifers, because the fact that it will know is as good as the fact that born people will know.

And the intent of abortion is to kill the fetus. That is the goal of abortion, regardless of how it is done. Ok, don't chop the guy up, feed him cyanide and throw him out. He won't die bloodily or painfully, but dead he will still become.

And we are not talking about laws dealing with age of accountablity and consent, such as being 18 to have sex with someone over 18, 21 to drink, 16 to drive. We are talking about the right to live. Having, or earning the right to drive is not the same as having the right to be alive.

For the first statement- Feti do have value as well.

In a siilar way ,death is a side effect of war. The goal of war is not simply to kill people. The goal of war is generally to make money or gain politcal power. It just so happens that the way moguls and world leaders go about it end up killing people. It is simply the easiest way to scare people, and the easiest way to take over. If they're not alive, they can't fight back.

And as for self sufficiency, this is true. This is why it is a different scenario for born people and feti. A born person, if thrown out of your house will likely not sit still until he freezes/starves to death. He can walk somewhere else, or get to a shelter or build a fire, whatever.

We aren't trynng to take control of your body. We are trying to protect the fetus in your body, in this one and only one circumstance of pregnancy.

Because we want it to be.

*lifts glasses*

The differences between a fetus and a human aren't something we fully agree with (I mean, people's perceptions of those differences). The disassociation between human being and person is one of the greatest tragedies that pro-lifers are against.

If you're a human being you're one of the most unique and capable species on this planet. We believe that should be protected, despite the age of the individual organism.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree. I feel it is perfectly fine for a woman (like myself) to choose not to get an abortion. And I, actually, have little issue with groups or individuals that try to convince unintentionally pregnant women not to choose abortion, and often help them with other options. I also think that information should be provided about all options available, as well as all information available about the abortion procedure. I think counseling should be mandatory, and that there should be a waiting period for the couple to think about their choice.

But I just can't agree with trying to outlaw abortion before there is another option (like fetal transplant surgery) that can take its place. Because, as you say, it is a breech of rights. And I don't agree with compromising rights, even for the best of reasons.

Not to say that I don't believe there need to be limits on abortion. I think that, given the politicized state of this issue, there do need to be laws in place that outlaw abortions after viability, without the recommendation of a doctor to save the life of the pregnant woman. I even would support moving the date for "viability" to when the 50% chance of survival for a premature baby is (24 weeks? I can't remember).

For me, taking away control of someone's body is never okay. To me, it doesn't matter if it is temporary, it doesn't matter if it saves someone else's life. Taking away that control horrifies me far too much (as I stated before) for me to ever support that sort of thing.