A Fetus Is Not A Child

[KittyWampus]

A fetus is not a child.

An expectant mother and her family and friends may think of it as a child. Her doctor may think of it as a future child. But to society and within the eyes of the law- an undelivered fetus is a fetus.

Until a few years ago, I would have supported someone on DU calling a fetus a child under certain circumstance, but things have changed since then:

Gynecologists who perform abortions have been shot
A teen's apparent miscarriage in school caused a police swarm
Many more women’s health clinics have been shut down in republican controlled states
Women who want abortions in some states must put up with a medically unnecessary vaginal probe/ultrasound
Women who may want an abortion are lied to about possible after effects in an effort to scare them

The anti-choice and anti-woman agenda has far outpaced women’s rights advocates ability to fight back. Unable to overturn Roe v Wade, the far right has found other invasive, deleterious tactics nation wide and been successful in their strongholds. And they aren’t stopping. They are well funded and well organized.

One of the far rights primary tactics is to label a fetus a child. They also do everything they can to control what pregnant women can or cannot do.

So if someone on DU calls an abstract fetus a child, a fetus that isn't in their own or family member's womb… I do not think it's an over reaction to object and request that terminology not be used.

This post may not be well written, but hopefully DU'ers will understand my intent. Not to scold or flame but reach out and explain the situation for women's reproductive freedom is eroding and under CONSTANT assault. We are rapidly going backwards, not forwards. I am recently past child bearing age but worry about my friends' daughters and all women. I know what it's like to miss a period and also to face an unwanted pregnancy.

[etherealtruth]

1. EXCELLENT post!

I am at work; therefore, the only comment I can make right now is thank you!

(by the way, it is well written ... it communicates the message perfectly)

[badtoworse]

2. Call it what you want. As a matter of law, when does it acquire its right to life?

[eggplant]

20. According to my mother, after they finish graduate school.

Thus I live in continual fear that she'll abort me.

[cali]

21. legal rights don't exist for an individual until after he/she is born

which is not the same thing as saying anyone can do anything to a fetus at anytime during its gestation.

[badtoworse]

59. How do you explain the Laci Peterson Case?

Scott Peterson was convicted of Second Degree Murder for the death of Laci's unborn son. The court must have recognized that Laci's unborn child had a right to life or a murder conviction could not have occurred. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

Even though there is a carve out for legally conducted abortions, the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act does seem to put the question in a "grey area". The law applies to a "child in utero".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

[Shrike47]

78. It wasn't the court recognizing the fetus's right to life, it was how the state legislature defined

murder and potential victims. It's a slippery slope when they start including unborns as victims.

[uppityperson]

28. Legal rights exist after birth.

[onecaliberal]

36. When they can live outside the womb on their own.

[philosslayer]

157. How about a preemie who is on a ventilator?

You may want to revise your definition.

[onecaliberal]

173. You know exactly what I meant

Spare me.

[LiberalAndProud]

42. Viability. As a matter of law.

[LittleBlue]

70. That's how it is in my state

In Washington State the limit on elective abortion is viability. There are several exceptions, like the life of the mother.

Which, to me, is reasonable.

[jbeing]

49. It acquires its Right to Life

When it becomes a corporation.

[calimary]

172. Welcome to DU, jbeing!

Glad you're here! That is a GREAT one!!! This is one of those litmus tests for me. Mine is the pro-choice issues. And I am EXTREMELY worried about a woman's right to choose. It's been so besieged and eroded and attacked and condemned. And for me it's a non-negotiable. A woman's right to have the last word over what happens to HER body - is an ABSOLUTE. It's not on the table.

[broadcaster75201]

52. 3rd Trimester essentially NT

nt

[annabanana]

144. I would say when it can exist independent of the woman's body. . . n/t

[B2G]

3. There is medical terminolgy and

human, emotional terminolgy. Neither is wrong.

When I was pregnant, I was expecting my baby, not a fetus.

[KittyWampus]

5. probably sound biological reasons for a mother to see a fetus as a child JUST as

there are sound legal reasons why i will not call any fetus that isn't in my womb a child.

[handmade34]

4. something I wrote on another site...

a wanted fetus is a baby... an unwanted fetus is just that, a fetus, a mass of cells

a baby is a dream, an ideal, an expectation... it is the hope and the desire that makes a fetus in the womb a "baby"

what it is called, but more important, the emotion and ideology attached to it... We are all different from each other and all go through different stages in our lives... so we may attach different meaning to a fetus at different times. No one other than the mother and often the father can determine what that meaning is. You or some other stranger cannot place a value on what is growing within someone else's body.

A Baby IS a promise, a precious thing, a dream, a future for many... for others it is not. A fetus is a mass of cells, growing more complex as the days go by, but still a mass of cells that responds to stimuli's and moves but it is not a human, not a baby until the parents, and others concerned understand it as a future, their baby.

What makes us Human? The answer is often at the crux of how people view abortion. People differ on what they believe and when considering those things that only affect the individual, I no more would want to impose my values on another than I would want another to impose theirs on me. There are a number of reasons that some people oppose abortion, religion being the primary one. People have every right to adhere to a dogma, a faith, but have no right to impose it upon someone else.

I have never heard an argument that convinces me of the need for or justification of a ban on abortion. I have children I love more than life itself, I have had abortions, I have committed my life to helping those that live here and now and respect the individual. If needed I would do everything I could to help a mother carry a child to term is that is her wish, her dream. But also if needed, I would do everything I could to get a woman help in order to get an abortion if that was her wish. Seems quite simple to me.

[KittyWampus]

6. I understand where you are coming from and it's beautifully written/expressed.

[Nye Bevan]

7. I think at the point where it is reasonably expected to survive independently, outside of the womb,

it is reasonable to think of it as a living child or baby. But not when it is merely a clump of cells.

[KittyWampus]

10. No, sorry. Can no longer support that. Because the far-right uses that to try and ban late term

abortions that are medically necessary.

And they also push what is "viable" earlier and earlier.

If the far right wasn't in an ongoing war against women… I would be able to support your position.

[Nye Bevan]

17. I don't allow the right-wingers to dictate how I think about things (nt)

[KittyWampus]

77. Women's Rights Advocates don't have the luxury of ignoring rightwing tactics or encouraging

their rhetoric.

My whole point in posting this was to point out that women's reproductive rights are under an escalating attack and calling a fetus a child is a primary tactic. Using their rhetoric even if it seems reasonable isn't helpful.

[Puzzledtraveller]

122. Thank you Nye

I share the same sentiment.

[Major Nikon]

44. That would put it at about 12 or 13

Even then it's hard to imagine unless someone was exploiting the child, which wouldn't really make it independent. Short of that and the child is certainly not going to be able to survive independently. If you really mean viability, then synthetic wombs certainly push viability pretty much to conception if not prior to that.

[Nye Bevan]

75. You do know that "synthetic wombs" (aka artificial uteruses) do not actually exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus

[Major Nikon]

109. They do actually exist

Your own source alluded to them.

Just not a working model that can take a fetus to term exists as yet, but is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility or even practicability. I'm quite certain a full term model can and eventually will be developed. Only bioethical considerations will prevent it from happening sooner rather than later.

The point was technology will always push viability further upstream, which makes it a very poor standard for legal, ethical, or moral considerations, unless one's goal is to stamp out any and all forms of family planning except abstinence.

[PeaceNikki]

84. Viability is still defined as the ability to live outside the womb. Real or artificial.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

Viability as a test for personhood

If pro-choice advocates reject conception as the first moment of personhood, then the question becomes: when do pro-choice advocates believe that personhood begins? One of the best tests of personhood is viability, upon which the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade was based. Viability is defined as the ability to live outside the womb. It is based upon the broader logic that "a person is as a person does." In other words, people normally breathe on their own, circulate blood on their own, fight off most germs on their own and sustain normal cellular activity on their own. A fetus is able to achieve these functions once it reaches a weight of about 5 pounds. This usually occurs between the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy -- coincidentally, about the time that the baby has finished its brain and central nervous system. The extra womb time appears to be a biological courtesy.

Critics point out that our advancing technology is saving premature babies at ever earlier ages, and therefore the age of viability is being pushed back. Indeed, one day it may be able to fertilize an egg in the laboratory and raise it to term completely outside the womb of the mother. All this technology, however, simply amounts to a surrogate womb. Viability is still defined as the ability to live outside the womb, whether that womb be real or artificial.

[Major Nikon]

110. There's a good reason why Ruth Bader Ginsburg now rejects viability as a meaningful standard

The reason is because viability means something very different today than it did in 1973.

So what happens when a fetus may be transferred to an artificial womb at the point of conception or even before? This means every sperm and egg becomes potentially viable, and the right to choose evaporates whether or not it's a practical option for those involved.

[CTyankee]

114. viability is viability and that hasn't changed magically from 1973 to now...

to think that evolution has taken place is "wishful thinking."

why don't you consult scientists who know something about what they are talking about?

[Major Nikon]

128. No magic to it, really

If you really want to be as informed as you seem to think you are, Planned Parenthood v. Casey might be a good start.

The plurality then overturned the formula used in Roe to weigh the woman's interest in obtaining an abortion against the State's interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

Just sayin'

[CTyankee]

139. are you talking about babies born prematurely than can live without medical

intervention or those "born" so early that they require extensive medical intervention?

[Major Nikon]

148. Here's what I'm talking about

The so-called "viability" standard is nothing more than an idea cooked up by law clerks in the chambers of the USSC. It's no more morally or ethically defensible than tossing a dart at a gestation calendar. Some fetus will be completely healthy to full term only to die in childbirth meaning they were never actually viable. Some can be removed from their mothers at 22 weeks and live. So all that is really happening is that the state gets to arbitrarily pick a point at which the rights of a mass of cells trumps the rights of a person to make medical choices over their own body. The actual point of "viability" is when a life actually becomes viable, which is generally around the time it's actually rather than abstractly removed from its mother.

[CTyankee]

149. what was not considered at the time of the Roe decision was whether science would essentially

develop a way to incubate a baby out of those cells, pre-what we call viability. In that case, it would seem to me, pro-choice becomes moot in all but the most extreme cases such as ectopic pregnancy and dire threats to the woman's life if the pregnancy is continued. In the case of my daughter, she had HELLP syndrome and her body stopped making platelets. Fortunately, this syndrome asserts later in pregnancy, so she had an emergency C section and my grandson was far enough along that he was viable enough, tho premature. He is, however, on the autism scale tho not in any way extreme. He also has an eye issue that will need surgery later, when he is in his teens. Right now he lacks depth perception in his left eye.

[Major Nikon]

152. No matter how it's framed it still boils down to forcing a person to be an incubator

[progressoid]

74. Surviving outside the womb without millions of dollars worth of technology?

[cali]

8. all true. the only place I disagree with you is your assertion

that things changed suddenly a few months ago. They didn't. The things you describe have been going on for years and years.

I agree that a fetus is not a child.

The promulgation of TARP laws is what has destroyed choice in this country. The illusion of choice remains, but that's all that it is.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Thank you for this and your participation in that other thread.

So frustrating.

[BrotherIvan]

11. Thank you Thank you Thank you

A fetus is not a child. It is a potential child, but until it is born from its mother, it is not a child. Calling a fetus a baby allows all the anti-abortion crap. They can call abortion murder or baby killing. I think your distinction that a parent or relative may think of it as a baby is a good one, but scientifically and legally it is not a baby, it is a fetus.

[SunSeeker]

12. K & R

[kiva]

13. K&R

This is it exactly. When I read people on DU using anti-choice language and refusing to change it, I realize that DU is neither as progressive nor as supportive of women's rights as many like to claim.

[HockeyMom]

14. "Why do mothers care more abou their born children than their unborn children?"

That is why these people cannot understand and HATE Pro-Choice Mothers. They do not undersand that a living and breathing human being has far more rights than a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, or fetus. Does a fertilized egg have the same rights as a 3 year old child? Absolutely, NOT.

After I had my ruptured ectopic pregnancy in a Catholic Hospital, they sent a Priest to talk to me. "I know you are bitter about losing your baby, he said to me." Hell, no, I was bitter about you almost killing me and leaving my 3 year old motherless, for a DOOMED/DEAD 6 week old embryo. My life, and my already born child, is NOTHING in comparison to the unborn? I don't think so.

[Avalux]

15. Biology vs. religious beliefs.

In strictly biological terms, a fetus is not a person until it is birthed because it is viable and able to survive on its own outside of the uterus. Abortion is a medical procedure that is safe and should be easy to obtain. Women should not be inhibited from exercising their right to this procedure for WHATEVER REASON they choose.

If a person chooses to not have an abortion or chooses to believe that their fetus is a baby because of their religious beliefs, that is their business. No one is forcing them to have abortions. But it is wrong to force women who don't agree with those religious beliefs to adhere to them.

Religious morality conflates fetus with a baby, and labels abortion evil. It has no place in medicine or law-making.

[DeadLetterOffice]

67. Not all religions conflate fetus and baby.

Judaic teachings are very clear and consistent that a fetus is not considered a person until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until its head clears the birth canal.

[procon]

16. can you imagine what would happen if the legal definition

Ever changed to include fetuses?

All abortions would become murders, just as the far right dreams of, and would a miscarriage. Women, doctors, nurses,paramedics, hospitals would be in legal jeopardy, and no doubt the prison for profit industry will collude with the lawmakers to grow their business. Someone would have to pay for all those autopsies, funerals and internment which would be required for human remains.

I can't chastise anyone who fondly refers to their own fetus with terms of endearment such as child or Baby-kin as long as it remains a fetus under the law.

[ismnotwasm]

18. K&R

[ErikJ]

19. Even the Bible says a fetus is not a child

until its taken its 1st breath.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1285933/-Bible-Life-Begins-at-Breath-Not-Conception

[hifiguy]

22. Excellent post! Bravo!

[get the red out]

23. I agree 100%

Great post.

[frankieallen]

24. With what would you specifically want to see a mugger charged with if say he punched

and kicked an expectant mother during the commission of a crime causing the fetus's death, but only bumps and bruises to the mother?
I am playing devils advocate here, I fully support a woman's right to do as she wishes with here own body, then again, i don't think you can say an 8 or 9 month old fetus is not a baby.
In other words,
when does the fetus, or unborn child, have the right not to be killed.... by anyone ?

[valerief]

31. I see only one victim in that scenario--the woman. nt

[PeaceNikki]

39. This ^

In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges, judges may impose harsher penalties and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.

Fetal homicide laws are used almost exclusively to punish pregnant women.

[valerief]

48. ^^THIS^^^. Yes, fetal homicide laws are to punish pregnant women. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. Should Scott Peterson have been convicted of one murder or two?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

[PeaceNikki]

92. one. an aggravated one.

[REP]

123. At least two crimes committed against his wife

None against the fetus.

[valerief]

126. Duh, one, of course. nt

[uppityperson]

32. And if that same women needed a late term abortion, what specifically would you want to see her

charged with?

"when does the fetus, or unborn child, have the right not to be killed.... by anyone ?"

They do not have the right to be born.

[frankieallen]

47. "needed"..... apples and oranges as far as the scenario I posed. But to answer your

ridiculous question, I would not want to see her charged with anything. She needs a late term abortion she should get one....obviously.

[uppityperson]

58. Thank you. Now, what if she wanted one, but not because her life was at risk?

What if it were fetal abnormality instead?

[frankieallen]

141. please be more specific, what kind of abnormality are we talking about?

Is the baby severely mentally retarded? or just ugly?
I guess the question would be, can the child live a healthy happy life? outside a hospital or constant care facility, and not require around the clock care?

A woman wants to abort a fetus, no problem, she should be able to walk into a clinic without being harassed or bothered, and get one. Free of charge.
People who hang out at family planning centers to harass should be jailed. Many pregnant woman considering abortion are probably going through a very tough time in their lives and don't need to be bothered with bible thumping fools with nothing better to do.
But, I am of the opinion, and it's just my opinion, that if a woman decides all of a sudden at 8 or 9 months that she WANTS an abortion, that she should get some counseling to find out why. She may be suffering from something and need help, and could be about to make a decision that will haunt her the rest of her life.

[valerief]

142. I thought you people were against big government, so why are you forcing the government

laws on a woman?

[uppityperson]

159. Did you make your reply offensive on purpose or was it just badly worded?

Show me 1 woman who has aborted her 8-9 month fetus for being "ugly". How the hell would a pregnant woman know whether or not her fetus wa "ugly" and what the fuck. Seriously, what. the. fuck.

Are you saying you want mandated counseling for late term abortions because her "suddenly deciding she doesn't want a baby" might "haunt her the rest of her life"? Do you seriously think ANYONE wakes one day at 8-9 months and blithely says "ho hum, changed my mind, I think I'll have abortion today instead"?

Have you any damn clue why the hell women get late term abortions and anything about doctors who do them? And before you pull Grosnell out of your bag of anti-health care tricks, he was a murderer who broke the law in so many ways and a big reason for keeping late term abortions legal. So women do not have to turn to back alley abortionists like him.

The decision is between the woman and her health care provider.

So I ask again, did you really mean to make that reply so offensive? Educate yourself. There is a documentary called After Tiller that just aired on PBS, is available on netflix, itunes, etc. Watch that and learn about the realities of late term abortion.

[frankieallen]

166. Relax, the ugly comment was in response to your poorly worded reply. Let me ask you a question

because i guess i'm confused regarding your position.
Obviously if there is a health issue for mother or fetus, a woman and her doctor should have the option of abortion at any point in the pregnancy. I fully agree with this, in fact it's common sense.
my question is, where do you draw the line? when is it not ok for a woman to have an abortion? Do you think a woman should be able to get an abortion at any time for any reason right up until birth?
It's a simple question, can you answer?

[uppityperson]

168. Yes, I can answer.

I think it should be between a pregnant woman/girl and their health care provider, legally. As far as what I am comfortable with, taking into account all the related issues, I can speak only for myself as I do not know all the related issues. Yes, I can see limitations based on how far along the pregnancy is. "for any reason", if it includes that assinine reason of "oh, I changed my mind", assine being the extreme rarity so basically nonexistant need to legislate for that extreme case is used to try and legislate and get in the way of early abortiions, 3rd timester is my point. Because of the extremely rare cases, so much time, effort is put into emotionally charging people up that they confuse and etreme case with the commonones.

"viability" depends on what huge amounts of resources are used to keep it alive out of the uterus. It used to be 6 months, then back to 24 weeks, now going even shorter. But to declare a fetus can be kept alive means they all should be kept alive, no. I do not agree with that. That decision, if a woman is 24 weeks along, is up to her and her doctor. 6 months , 26 weeks from conception, not last menstrual period, is my break point.

After 6 months, still it is up to the woman and her health care provider as I do not know all the things going on in any case but my own. But opening up a "day before due date abortion clinic, only 8-9 month pregnancies allowed, no questions asked" would be wrong as well as probably go out of business very soon.

[Major Nikon]

161. Apples and oranges

You mean like comparing a voluntary termination of a pregnancy with a forced one?

[PeaceNikki]

38. An aggravated crime against the woman, which it is. This is a typical RW tactic.

Like "Unborn Victims of Crime Acts"

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=171ab1e2-a77b-4791-a646-0ebc27512b9a

Fetal homicide laws are not the answer

Margaret Somerville ("New life matters, Nov. 6) and others in these pages have called for legal recognition for fetuses when pregnant women are murdered, which has occurred five times in Canada since 2004. The victims and families of such horrific tragedies deserve our deepest sympathy. However, creating a "fetal homicide" law that would allow murder charges to be laid for the death of a fetus would be an unconstitutional infringement on women's rights, and would likely result in harms against pregnant women.

When pregnant women are assaulted or killed, it's a domestic violence issue and it's well known that violence against women increases during pregnancy. What we need are better measures to protect women in general, and pregnant women in particular, from domestic violence. A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women.

Canadian women have guaranteed rights and equality, while fetuses do not. Legally speaking, it would be extremely difficult to justify compromising women's established rights in favour of the theoretical rights of fetuses. The Supreme Court has ruled (in Dobson vs. Dobson, 1999) that a womanandher fetusareconsidered "physically one" person under the law. Separating a woman from her fetus under the law creates a harmful, adversarial relationship between a woman and her fetus. For example, if pregnant women are threatened with arrest for abusing drugs, they are less likely to seek pre-natal care.

...

In the U.S., pregnant women have been arrested even under fetal protection laws that exempt the pregnant woman herself from prosecution. That's because a law that recognizes fetal rights creates a confusing legal contradiction. If a fetus has the right not to be "murdered" in the womb by a third party, why doesn't it have the right not to be "murdered" by its own mother? In practice, these contradictory laws create a dangerous slippery slope towards criminalizing pregnant women for their behaviours while pregnant.

In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges, judges may impose harsher penalties and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.

[Nye Bevan]

76. Of course an 8 month old fetus is a baby.

You can be pro-choice and still believe that.

[KittyWampus]

81. Fighting for Women's Reproductive Rights necessitates not calling a fetus a baby.

My OP explains, perhaps not clearly, that calling a FETUS a baby is a primary rightwing tactic.

Using their rhetoric helps them. It's to their advantage and to the disadvantage of women's reproductive rights.

[Nye Bevan]

82. People saying stupid things like denying that an 8-month old fetus is a baby

just looks ridiculous and does not help advance whatever argument they are attempting to make.

[KittyWampus]

86. My position isn't stupid. I don't appreciate your calling it stupid. It's a necessity in the face

of escalating rightwing attacks on women's reproductive rights.

[Neoma]

100. It's not a baby until it's born.

Until it needs it's ass wiped and you can hear it cry, I can't believe that it's a baby. A promise to be a baby if it's born however? Yes.

[ncjustice80]

88. Wrong. It is a fetus. A 10 month old fetus is still a fetus.

If its in the wound, tahn it is a fetus and is nithing more than another organ in the womans body.

[newcriminal]

133. I agree completely.

[Rozlee]

25. I was reading a story a few years ago about a young woman who died after an

unsafe abortion. The parents were distraught and went to an anti-abortion group in an attempt at grief therapy. They were horrified. The group never expressed condolences to them at the loss of their daughter, but instead, told them they were sorry for the loss of their grandchild, the fetus, who was barely at the 12th month stage. To the anti-choicers, the girl was a vessel of convenience that merely carried around the "murdered baby."

[uppityperson]

33. 12th week stage? not month. And yes, I have helped women who ran across those jerks also.

[Rozlee]

35. Gah! Yep, twelve weeks, not months.

Although, once a 'baby' is at the twelve months stage, they lose complete interest in it and no longer care if it's 'murdered' by starvation or any other means.

[tosh]

26. K&R.

Excellent post.

[moriah]

27. I still think if the mother thinks it's a child, it's a child.

And I will continue to refer to an unborn fetus as a child under those circumstances, when discussing, for example, when a man kills his pregnant girlfriend/wife because he didn't want to be a parent. He murdered both her, and her child.

If you want to go ahead and put me on hide now so I don't offend you, I understand. It's not intentional, but it will come out because that's how I feel. I'd rather go ahead and give you fair warning so I don't set off your buttons unintentionally if we're discussing a case like "Beth Doe" or other murders of pregnant women.

[KittyWampus]

83. My position is that the far right and their escalating tactics make using that rhetoric

and engaging in such tactics very unhelpful. Even if at times it seems reasonable.

And I don't ignore any one. Maybe when primaries start.

[moriah]

90. I understand, I just don't want to ever offend someone accidentally, and i just know....

... that despite my attempts to be PC on here when it comes to those situations, it's very hard for me... when those type of cases come up, "baby" and "child" are what immediately come to mind, not "fetus". Despite my best efforts to remember to use the medically correct term, I have to go back and re-read my posts when I post like that, to make sure I edit out if I accidentally referred to the fetus with those words.

Now, when it's discussing abortion rights, yeah, I don't call it a "baby" often. It's almost always when a DV victim gets targeted because she is pregnant that I'll slip.

Just don't ever want to trigger someone if they're very sensitive on a topic, hon.

[valerief]

29. Agreed. People are not people until their asses need wiping.

I'd like to see an amendment stating that.

(For the Henny Pennys, of course, that rule excludes people born with digestive disabilities.)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. what I've been saying for ages is that the talking point from the start should have been

Saving women's lives.

That is why a movement rallied leading to Ror v Wade in the first place. Hundreds of thousands of women were dying horrifically because abortion was illegal.

[ReRe]

34. K&R

Your writing was great! And I agree with every word. Thanks, KittyWampus for the OP.

[logosoco]

37. Very well put!

I think even biologically anything unborn is a fetus.

The other day my daughter sat down at the table and said "Did you hear about the royal baby?" and i immediately replied "You mean the royal fetus?". She got it.

[jberryhill]

40. Roe v. Wade assumes it is

A lot more people cite Roe v. Wade than have read it, I suppose.

Roe v. Wade assumes that an abortion is taking a life. However, it balances that against the woman's right to self determination on a sliding scale as gestation proceeds.

Assuming a fetus to be a human life does not "undo" Roe v. Wade, since that is a built-in assumption of the reasoning of that decision.

[PeaceNikki]

43. That's such a typical anti-choice argument. Nobody is saying it's not a 'life'.

One of the most common anti-choice claims is that "life begins at conception."

Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"

If pro-choice advocates reject conception as the first moment of personhood, then the question becomes: when do pro-choice advocates believe that personhood begins? One of the best tests of personhood is viability, upon which the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade was based. Viability is defined as the ability to live outside the womb. It is based upon the broader logic that "a person is as a person does." In other words, people normally breathe on their own, circulate blood on their own, fight off most germs on their own and sustain normal cellular activity on their own. A fetus is able to achieve these functions once it reaches a weight of about 5 pounds. This usually occurs between the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy -- coincidentally, about the time that the baby has finished its brain and central nervous system. The extra womb time appears to be a biological courtesy.


From: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

[jberryhill]

45. I don't see how Roe v. Wade is "anti-choice"

The entire nontroversy around "when human life begins" has absolutely nothing to do with the basis on which Roe v. Wade was decided.

People argue about "whether life begins at conception" as if that would somehow change the result in Roe v. Wade.

It wouldn't change the result, since Roe v. Wade did not hinge on that question anyway.

But, sure, call Roe v. Wade an "anti-choice" decision if you want to, but the point remains that getting exercised over rhetorical characterizations such as the one in the OP has absolutely nothing to do with the reasoning that supports Roe v.Wade.

[PeaceNikki]

46. Your argument is, not Roe v Wade. NOBODY said it wasn't 'a life'.

[jberryhill]

50. Then what difference does it make?

It really doesn't matter.

It makes no, none, zero, zip, zilch difference whether you use the terms "embryo", "fetus", "unborn child", or "patio furniture". None. People are going to call things what they call them. It doesn't change the law or the application of the law.

[PeaceNikki]

51. Because, what a woman does when pregnant is not "child abuse". That's what the difference is.

[jberryhill]

53. Still doesn't make a bit of legal difference

And, charging someone with something at the local court in Podunk and getting that kind of charge to hold up on appeal, are two different things.

People get charged with things that don't fit the definition of the charge all of the time. This is no exception to that. It's why there are courts.

[PeaceNikki]

62. The OP was in context of discussion on DU, not Podunk or the law

It was specific to people on a Democratic website, alleged to believe in Democratic ideals, and encouraging people who, in theory, support reproductive freedom, to avoid terminology used by those who are actively trying to to restrict our right (with great success, I might add).

[jberryhill]

136. It adopts an anti-choice false dichotomy

Roe v. Wade is not premised on some formula of IF (fetus = person) THEN (abortion = murder).

That is an anti-choice framing which the left, for reasons which continue to mystify me, has eagerly adopted.

This country experimented with making alcohol illegal. That didn't end because alcohol became any less of an intoxicant, or because anyone's opinions about drinking changed. It ended because it became apparent that the consequences of its illegality were invasive, made criminals out of ordinary people, resulted in dangerous behaviors, and its impact depended on one's social class. A similar history, one recounted in Roe v. Wade, applies relative to abortion, and the decision is not premised on or affected by how people choose to colloquially refer to things.

A friend of mine is near term and refers to her soon-to-be child as her child. She has reached a point in her life where she is able to competently support and raise a child because abortion was an option available to her years ago. She is not at all confused on that point, and I cannot at all wrap my head around what good anyone thinks is to be accomplished by scolding her over her use of language.

And, no, it is not the vanguard of a return to pre-Roe merely because people generally believe that a violent crime against a pregnant woman is an aggravated form of that violent crime. It is. And, yes, for pregnancies carried to term there is a legitimate societal interest in pre-natal care, because that has a direct impact on social costs of in the health care and education of youth. Neither of those considerations results in some linguistic jiu-jitsu that upends Roe v. Wade, because Roe v. Wade wasn't based on some kind of semantic categorization in the first place.

[uppityperson]

57. Does a fetus being a "human life" mean it is a child?

A Fetus Is Not A Child

[moriah]

99. I think you and I may have had this discussion before, but I've got a weird issue on intellectual...

... honesty when it comes to abortion.

Yes, a fetus is a human life. So is an embryo, from the moment of conception.

It's a child, when and only when, the mother feels it's a child, or when it is born.

Despite it being a human life and being a child if the mother considers it such, it does not, and should not, have the same rights as the woman carrying it. Or, rather, it's not able to be in a position to be forced to need to exert those rights until it's born, grown, and pregnant itself if it's female. Just as you don't have the right to demand I hook myself up to you for nine months to keep you alive, a fetus doesn't have the right to live in a woman's body if she doesn't want it there.

Now, I do believe in the (extremely unlikely, like to the point of probably never happening, ever) hypothetical situation of a pregnancy with a viable fetus being terminated for a reason other than a problem with the fetus itself or to save the woman's life (medical AND psychological reasons) that the form of termination of pregnancy should be labor induction or hysterotomy (the medical term for a c-section abortion), whichever the woman wishes to have. Both give an excellent chance for the fetus's survival and adoption by a couple, without making the woman have to carry the pregnancy once she wishes to end it. (I only say this because I know people who claim to be pro-choice but say that late-term elective abortion, even when performed in a manner that will preserve the fetus's life and allow for adoption, is wrong because of the complications of prematurity, and I firmly disagree with them.)

[uppityperson]

104. That was well worded, good job.

[Rex]

119. Oh dear

that didn't go over well...even though you are correct.

[uppityperson]

120. I remember being aghast reading Roe v Wade, very different than I thought it was

It was also about equality of care vs who can pay for what, if I recall, as rich people have always been able to get abortions and limiting such care to those who had lots of $$$ was wrong. But indeed, self determination on a sliding scale as pregnancy progressed.

Based on what rulings had come down in the past, not on what they thought was "right".

[IdaBriggs]

41. I went to my own personal archives on this one-I posted about it in 2006 while pregnant w/twins.

The twins are seven now, and doing well. I stand by what I wrote on November 15, 2006.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2721654

"A Pregnant Woman's Musing on Abortion"

Today I am 18 weeks pregnant with boy/girl twins. My husband and I are thrilled, although frankly, pregnancy has not yet been as much "fun" as my fantasies might have painted it. (A week long stay in the hospital due to "hyperemesis" or "super puking a lot" is still fresh in my mind...sigh.)

We have been trying to have children for eight years. We have danced the infertility dance in all of its glory, and mourned three miscarriages -- the first occurring the day after we saw the heartbeat, and the other two being "early" losses. At some level, I will forever mourn those "might have beens," and I accept that. It took a great deal of courage to "try again" after each loss for both my husband and myself. Sometimes I wasn't sure I could do it; sometimes I didn't want to -- that level of pain leaves permanent scars, even if there is no body to bury.

I am not 100% recovered from my anger at Ronald Reagan, who let his religious beliefs interfere in my medical treatment when he stopped infertility research in this country for twelve years due to it being "too much like playing God." If he'd read his bible, he might have noticed that dealing with infertility is one of the most challenging issues faced by the women in that book! In my mind, God gave us the brains for science so we could become part of the "creation" process, but that deals with my religion, and not Reagan's.

I do not call my "babies" by the medical term "fetuses." I point out "my son" (who likes to hang out on the left side) and "my daughter" (who likes to hang out on the right). I have witnessed them kicking each other in the head via ultrasound, and my husband and I jokingly refer to them as "Jean Claude Van Damm and Brucella Lee."

Neither of my "babies" could live outside my womb at the moment. In addition to all of the "normal" terrors of pregnancy (are they going to be healthy? are they going to be normal? am I doing anything "bad" I don't know about? etc.), I worry about not making it to "full term" and having to spend time in a NICU wondering if they will make it. My goal is to "keep them inside" until they are at a point where they can leave the hospital *with me* when I go home.

I am in the middle of one of the most "pro-life" moments of my entire life -- and yet, when it comes to abortion, I am still "pro-choice."

I do not believe it is for me to make medical decisions this important for other women. I do not know their specific circumstances, and frankly, it is none of my business.

I know the "reality" of the stats -- 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic or tubal; that means both mother and child *WILL DIE* if the pregnancy is not terminated. I know women who have had to face that choice, and I have born witness to their grief. And I thank God I did not have to make a similar decision. (shudder)

I know women who decided to terminate unplanned pregnancies because of non-medical reasons. A lifetime commitment to a child was not something they could make at that time for a variety of reasons -- perhaps a poor choice in partner, or financial challenges, or even just outright terror because it wasn't a stable period in their life such that they could welcome a new addition with joy. Some knew I was struggling with infertility, and told me they felt shame at giving up something I so desperately wanted, and I did my best to point out they had to live their own lives, not mine. Whatever decision they made was a decision I would support; it was not my place to judge. I believe that still.

I may know one woman who used abortion as a form of birth control -- we never really talked about it. I believe that phase of her life was colored by the drugs both she and her partner were abusing at the time, and I know that as the quality of her life improved (losing the druggie partner/getting off of illegal drugs herself) the behavior didn't continue. She was not a bad person, but had suffered much trauma and grief in her childhood, and the "self medication" cycle was painful to watch. In time she gave birth to two children, and she loved them dearly.

I know three women who have had "second trimester" abortions. The first had Lupus, and thought she'd be able to carry to term; the disease flared, and her doctor gave her the choice of dying, or terminating the pregnancy. I remember her grieving; she and her husband had *wanted* that child -- a girl -- so much! She told me once she sometimes questioned if she'd made the right choice when the pain was too strong. The wound was still fresh when I knew her; I saw her beginning to recover toward the end of our relationship. (She was a coworker, and we lost touch when both of us moved on to other positions.)

The other two women who had "second trimester" abortions both had babies with (oddly enough) the same incurable birth defect -- a heart problem that would result in death within hours after birth, unless a heart transplant was performed immediately. Both were told, very gently, that the odds of an infant heart being available fell into the "slim to none" category, while possible alternatives included keeping their child alive on machines for three to four years with multiple surgeries before they died anyway. They could, of course, hope for a miracle, but miracles to cure this type of problem were close to nonexistent. Both chose to terminate the pregnancies; we heard the tale of another woman who didn't, and ended up spending months in a mental hospital after machines had kept her baby alive for four months.

Judge them as murderers? NEVER! With compassion, I hold fast to prayers that I never have to face such an awful circumstance myself!

I do not view abortion as murder anymore than I think "God murdered my unborn babies when miscarriages occurred." I hold fast to my belief in a loving, compassionate deity. Life, with all of its losses, happens. We all do the best we can with the resources we have at the time. I want abortion -- a medical procedure -- to be safe, legal and rare.

In the meantime, I count my blessings daily, and pray that in the spring I will be counting fingers and toes on healthy babies. I have been given a gift to treasure, and getting pregnant was *MY* *CHOICE* -- and while I might have the occasional 'what the heck was I thinking?' moment in the middle of a puke fest, I am generally speaking, happy. My babies are wanted, and I am content. They are miracles to me, as are all children, and my life is exactly that -- mine. I can only do my best to live it with courage, compassion, and integrity, while trusting other women to do the same. Their choices are their own, and in this area, I *will* *not* judge.

As a matter of personal life and death, such decisions are best left to the individual.

I am Pro-Life. I am Pro-Choice. For me, they are one and the same.

[moriah]

56. Thank you, and this is what I mean when I refer to a fetus as a child.

Not in the way that anti-choicers do, but when discussing it from the sense of the mother's view of her child. It's a baby to her.

So when someone else, not God, takes that baby away from her against her will, by either beating her into a miscarriage, or killing her in order to not be a parent, yes, I think they are guilty of murder even if the woman survives the man's attempt to get out of being a father.

I'm also from the perspective of someone who has had an abortion myself when I wasn't ready and my body couldn't have handled a pregnancy due to medications I was on, but who can and wants to have a child now. I know that if I get pregnant, my "fetus" will be my baby to me. And I would want justice for anyone who killed him or her against my will, no matter how long it'd been since conception.

[IdaBriggs]

61. I think (for us) using the "medically correct" term would have been a way of "distancing"

from the pregnancy emotionally. After the miscarriages, I never said, "I have miscarried and lost my fetus" - it was, "I lost the baby." That was where *my* emotional investment was, and it conveyed to those around me in words we all understood what I was going through mentally/emotionally.

Language is indeed powerful stuff. Good luck to you!

[VA_Jill]

54. Thank you!

Very well stated. I have known women who have terminated pregnancies where the fetus had defects that were incompatible with life. I have known women who have terminated pregnancies where the fetus had defects that they, as parents, felt completely incapable of coping with. I have known women who chose not to terminate such pregnancies. I have known women who have chosen to terminate pregnancies for other reasons. It is not up to anyone else to judge someone else's reasons or motives or label a woman "selfish" for making a decision that is quite probably the most difficult one there is. I've never known a woman who didn't agonize over it for a long time, both before and after. These glib assholes on the far right are the most clueless and cruel in the world! And I should stop before I get too angry and emotional.....I am far past childbearing age but have many young friends.....

[closeupready]

55. So you oppose charging assailants with murder in cases

where a pregnant woman is assaulted, subsequently losing her fetus as a result of that assault?

[PeaceNikki]

63. Absolutely. Yes, it's an aggravated crime against a woman.

Like "Unborn Victims of Crime Acts"

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=171ab1e2-a77b-4791-a646-0ebc27512b9a

Fetal homicide laws are not the answer

Margaret Somerville ("New life matters, Nov. 6) and others in these pages have called for legal recognition for fetuses when pregnant women are murdered, which has occurred five times in Canada since 2004. The victims and families of such horrific tragedies deserve our deepest sympathy. However, creating a "fetal homicide" law that would allow murder charges to be laid for the death of a fetus would be an unconstitutional infringement on women's rights, and would likely result in harms against pregnant women.

When pregnant women are assaulted or killed, it's a domestic violence issue and it's well known that violence against women increases during pregnancy. What we need are better measures to protect women in general, and pregnant women in particular, from domestic violence. A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women.

Canadian women have guaranteed rights and equality, while fetuses do not. Legally speaking, it would be extremely difficult to justify compromising women's established rights in favour of the theoretical rights of fetuses. The Supreme Court has ruled (in Dobson vs. Dobson, 1999) that a womanandher fetusareconsidered "physically one" person under the law. Separating a woman from her fetus under the law creates a harmful, adversarial relationship between a woman and her fetus. For example, if pregnant women are threatened with arrest for abusing drugs, they are less likely to seek pre-natal care.

...

In the U.S., pregnant women have been arrested even under fetal protection laws that exempt the pregnant woman herself from prosecution. That's because a law that recognizes fetal rights creates a confusing legal contradiction. If a fetus has the right not to be "murdered" in the womb by a third party, why doesn't it have the right not to be "murdered" by its own mother? In practice, these contradictory laws create a dangerous slippery slope towards criminalizing pregnant women for their behaviours while pregnant.



In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges, judges may impose harsher penalties and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.

[locdlib]

60. I also believe we need to stop saying

"woman/women who want an abortion." It appears to me that RWNJ actually believe that women "want" to have abortions. In the same manner that a woman would want to receive equal pay (something they also hate).

[houston_radical]

64. Why aren't the right-to-lifers railing against fertility clinics?

Because there are thousands of fertilized embryos shit-canned or frozen for eternity in those places every year.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

The so-called "right-to-life" campaign is not about life. Right-wingers routinely fight against early childhood development programs and work to deny prenatal care for poor and low-income women.

So they don't care about the child before it's born, and they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born.

Their issue is women and sex. They just can't stand the idea of women engaging in casual sex.

[happyslug]

68. Some have, here is the Catholic Position on Fertility clinics:

I post this NOT to express that this is MY position but to show that some opponents of abortion HAVE thought about fertility clinics:

Guidelines for Catholics on the Evaluation and Treatment of Infertility

"On the part of the spouses, the desire for a child is natural: it expresses the vocation to fatherhood and motherhood inscribed in conjugal love. This desire can be even stronger if the couple is affected by sterility which appears incurable. Nevertheless, marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation. A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child's dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, "the supreme gift" and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception." - Donum Vitae


"How do I know when a reproductive technology is morally right?"

Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral.
Any procedure which substitutes or suppresses a need for marital intercourse is immoral.

Reproductive Technologies in Disagreement with Catholic Teachings:

Obtaining a semen sample by means of masturbation
Artificial insemination using sperm from a donor (AID) or even the husband (AIH) if obtained by masturbation
In-vitro fertilization (IVF), zygote intra-fallopian transfer (ZIFT), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), ovum donation, "surrogate" uterus
* excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church explaining why these are immoral
** Articles further explaining the problems with in vitro fertilization and artificial fertilization

http://www.catholicinfertility.org/guidelines.html

[ZombieHorde]

65. I think this is a very interesting subject.

Some pro-choice folks look down on women who drink, smoke, etc., while pregnant.

Some pro-life folks get abortions, and believe their situation is different than other peoples.

[AverageJoe90]

66. This was honestly a good post.

We need to keep fighting the Religious Right, no matter how much money they may get.

[theHandpuppet]

71. I really don't think you're in a position to tell anyone here what they should post

Considering you just joined today and this is your very first post. This is a progressive discussion forum. I assume you knew that when you signed on.

[PeaceNikki]

73. Go be sick elsewhere.

[uppityperson]

79. Welcome to DU. At what point in time does a fetus become a child?

Do you mean legally or developmentally? It is true that a fetus becomes a child legally after it is born, no one is saying otherwise.

Is this a child?


Or is this a child?


This is a child.


This is a child.

[handmade34]

87. a fetus is not a child

[BlueCaliDem]

89. WRONG. A fetus is NOT a child.

Your opinion doesn't supersede scientific fact.

[moriah]

91. Who were the 5 people that voted to keep this troll's post?

On Mon Sep 15, 2014, 03:47 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

This kind of thinking makes me SICK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5540269

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Conservative troll who doesn't understand that "certain point in time" is birth.

JURY RESULTS

Someone else already alerted on this post before you alerted on it, and only the first alert was sent to a Jury. A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of the post on Mon Sep 15, 2014, 03:36 PM, and voted 2-5 to keep IT. Please note that even though your alert was not sent to a Jury, it has been forwarded to the Administrators who review all alerts.

[PeaceNikki]

93. my alert. not position to post results right now

[The Magistrate]

94. The Point In Time After Which It Is A Child Is Birth....

"What a nimrod! What a ultra-maroon!"

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

124. +1 to title.

Out in the open, no longer using mother's blood? It's a child.

[Tumbulu]

96. A fetus is made into a child by a willing mother

and anyone forced into doing that magical work is being grossly exploited and is in fact enslaved.

To grow a fetus into a child is not a simple or routine matter. It takes a huge amount out of any mother, and presents life threatening risks. That she is willing or able to do this is absolutely her choice and hers only.

[Feral Child]

98. You've got an opinion.

Interesting.

[JustAnotherGen]

106. She is within TOS

So she doesn't have to stop.

You don't have a Constitutional Right to not be made sick simply because you disagree with a poster at DU.


If you go to the main page - you will see an x in a little box next to the title of this thread. Click that.

It will send it to the trash.

Then you won't be sick anymore.

[seabeyond]

107. always the giver....

[Major Nikon]

112. So who gets to choose when that time is?

You probably should have put more thought into it before you feigned illness.

[mercuryblues]

113. sorry to burst

your hot air filled balloon.

It is called prenatal and postnatal. (pre-birth/post-birth)
It is called a fetus until birth in medical world.

I know all that sciency medical stuff is hard to debunk, which is why the anti-choicers try to muddy the water. Their only purpose is to guilt and shame. They love the fetus, hate the child.

[ismnotwasm]

115. No,- fetus is human tissue

With the requisite human DNA-- not a child. The DNA of a fetus takes NO moral, ethical or otherwise position to the body of the woman where it resides. What is not is a child.

[mercuryblues]

118. 4 hours

people have been replying to your posts and not once have you chosen to reply and backup your claim with "facts".

One could think that you are merely a troll looking to cause trouble and derail a thread. One could think that you are a chicken shit that knows absolutely nothing about a real pregnancy. One could even claim that your opinion is total horse shit, if they were so inclined.

Not me though. I just think you are a tool.

[tazkcmo]

131. I'm debating it. n/t

[rock]

72. "A Fetus Is Not A Child"

which you would not have to tell people if there were no republicans.

[Dont call me Shirley]

85. I should write a book on what it's like to grow up an unwanted child!

That would scare the beegeezus out of any reich-winger. Of course they don't want to take care of all the unwanted children. These mic funded mega churches will do anything to oppress and divide!

[PeaceNikki]

95. you assume they care about children. they don't.

I'm sorry went through that.

[Dont call me Shirley]

101. I assumed they did not care about children. I assumed they know not of care at all.

Thing is many of these anti-abortion Fundies also are very unwanted children. They are lashing out at their mothers and society for not wanting them. They are mixed up in their belief that maybe if they save one "baby" from being aborted that somehow, in fairyland, they will be wanted. They don't want to look at the damage that society heaps upon the unwanted, therefore themselves.

Thanks for your compassion.

[LittleBlue]

97. Stop sounding so guilty. This debate is so damned cringeworthy

Everyone knows that all children were once fetuses, so they use the word interchangeably. Don't be so defensive about it, unless we want to appear as guilt-ridden as we sound.

Why be defensive? We're unquestionably in the right. Yes, abortion sucks. If only we could live in a world of rainbows and unicorns where every fetus gets to be born and their mother loved them and they have a great life blah blah blah. We don't.

Our alternative to abortion is women strapped down like lab animals and forced to give birth Josef Mengele style. Or alternatively, women and girls trying to perform abortion with coat hangers and end up dying while killing the fetus/baby/whateverthefuck anyway.

Safe, legal abortion is by far preferable. We don't need to pretend it's really awesome to get an abortion. We don't need to pretend that fetuses won't usually become children if left untouched by outside forces. Why are we struggling with these irrelevant issues when we have the best argument? Next time your right-wing (or left-wing) friends say that a fetus is a baby, tell them women aren't incubators. And they shouldn't be so terrified of going to get a safe abortion that they end up killing themselves along with fetuses that are doomed anyway. Abortion will happen, our decisions as voters will only influence whether it's safe or unsafe. I choose safe. Because that's what this debate is about no matter what words you use. If they don't like it, ask them for their alternative. Make them admit in public that they want girls to die, or that they want girls strapped down and forced to give birth. You'll win the argument that way.

So is it a child or a fetus? And when can we call it a child? My response is, no one should give a f***. It's irrelevant. I don't agree with the assertion that they gain ground by calling a fetus a child. Everyone over the age of 12 knows what a fetus/child is regardless of what you want to call it. They gain ground when we won't own our argument. Every minute you spend dedicated to debating word choice is a minute we're not reminding them of the alternative of women dying or strapped down like a lab experiment! The right-wing loves that debate because it makes us look ridiculous and helps to distract from the reality. Whatever you want to call fetuses or babies, women will die without safe abortion. To me, it's that simple.

[bettyellen]

103. many many women are happy and grateful for their abortions, so NOPE. not every fetus should

become a child- that is your idea of a world with rainbows and unicorns- but not the idea of thousands upon thousands of women who opt for the procedure.
Guilt doesn't even come into play here, not for me, or the OP.

[LittleBlue]

108. That isn't what I'm taking about at all

The guilt I'm talking about is the guilt of making the argument that we need to kill a life force. When you get defensive about what to call it, some might think it is a sensitive rather than straightforward issue.

I'll come out and say it without guilt. Sometimes we have to kill a life. Happens every day. Doctors do it at transplant committee meetings. We pull the plug on our loved ones. We even occasionally assist them with suicide. Unlike those examples, safe and legal abortion saves lives. We just do it by ending another's. Sometimes that life resembles a baby and sometimes it is a formless clump of cells. Either way, we choose the mother over a fetus that will die anyway.

Now, why appear guilty about that reality? And why provide the right with a giant distraction to hide behind so they can shelter their insane anti-women policy?

[bettyellen]

137. Nope- words are important and I agree with the OP. Maybe for some reason- given you think it is an

ideal that abortions do not occur- the guilt you are catching a whiff of is your own? I'm not seeing it in the OP.
For me the "rainbows and unicorn" world would be that none were needed for very dire reasons, rape and dangerous pregnancies. and that none would be denied women who need them- not that all pregnancies result in children. Totally different take on things, and guilt just does not figure into it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

129. Coherent and reasoned resply, rare these days.

Thank you.

[Major Nikon]

132. The trap not to fall into is believing the forced birthers give a shit about the fetus or the child

The same people ally themselves with a party that seeks to cut every pre-natal and post-natal program in existence and deny people access to those programs regardless of the effect it has on infant mortality and child health and welfare.

It's all about controlling others by people who believe that morality can only be controlled by threat or reward, which is to say they have no true morality to begin with.

[happyslug]

102. In many ways the issue is when does a Fetus becomes a human?

Under Roe vs Wade the Supreme Court did address that issue and adopted what had been the Common Law Rule on Abortion (which is turn was derived from Catholic Doctrine on abortion prior to 1869, through this step is NOT mentioned in Roe vs Wade).

Basically under the Common Law (and this under Roe vs Wade) a woman had the RIGHT to get an abortion in the first six month of the pregnancy. It was an absolute right in the first trimester, a more limited right in the second trimester, but a very restricted right in the third trimester.

If you want to read Roe vs Wade:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

The rationale behind this was Aristotle had determined it was possible for a child who had "Quicken" i.e had started to "Kick" and made itself felt to its mother (and anyone else who put their hands on her womb). This was the last trimester of a pregnancy and Aristotle determined that it was the point when a fetus became a human being.

This position was accepted by St Augustine around 400 AD and became the Catholic Rule from that point till 1869 (they was a two year period in the 1500s when it ceased to be the rule, but then it was reinstated on the ground it had been dogma for 1100 years and the change was NOT supported by anything in the bible or other church writing).

Here is an American Bishop doing his best to get around St Augustine and Abortion:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/vasapelosi.htm

Another group view on the views of the Catholic Church and Abortion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Side note: One of the Justification used by the Catholic Church was the story of John the Baptist, while in his Mother's womb jumped for joy when Mary came carrying Jesus in her womb. If John could "Jump" he was alive and thus "ensouled" (a term adopted by St Augustine as to those fetuses that could NOT be aborted for they had "quicken&quot .

Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

http://biblehub.com/luke/1-41.htm

The attack on this three trimester concept, did NOT come from the Church but from the Medical Community starting in the early 1800s. Till the early 1800s abortions were NOT done by doctors but midwives. The Hippocratic Oath banned abortions, but given that even in Greek Society abortions were done by mid wives that ban on doctors performing abortions appears to have to do with doctors being paid by someone other then the mother to have the mother abort.

Starting in the 1800s there was a move to stop mid wives helping out at births in addition to and to a greater degree then to stop mid wives from performing abortions.

In fact in one of the first cases that would later be used to justify the Germ concept of disease, involved comparing mid wives and doctors when it came to child deaths in hospitals. In the 1840s it was found that the mid wives had LOWER death rates then Doctors. The head of the Hospital tried to determined why and came up with a theory that since the doctors went from the morgue to the maternity ward, they carried something with them that was causing the death (please note this is BEFORE the Germ theory of disease had even been proposed). The doctor reduced the death rate be demanding that the doctors use disinfection before going into the Maternity ward. This dropped the death rate to be lower then the rate with mid wives. The Head Doctor was ridiculed for his observations for they went against established medical practice and was NOT retained when his contract of employment came up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_mortality_rates_of_puerperal_fever

Anyway, the head of the Hospital was replaced and death rates returned to what they had been (It appears some doctors and mid wives decide on their own to embrace the concept of disinfection but it took till the 1880s for the germ theory of medicine to replace the older theories of medication).

Anyway, one of the reason the above doctor was NOT liked was he reported a lower death rate when mid wives were used instead of doctors. The Medical community was in full press mode to put ALL medical activities, including pregnancy, under they control and to do that the Medical Community needed to outlaw mid wives. Given that the Hippocratic Oath forbad abortions, efforts were made to work around that restriction. The main work around was to have the states pass laws restricting abortions to when they were medically necessary, and that was to be decided by a doctor. i.e. it would be illegal for anyone to give a woman an abortion UNLESS it was a doctor who had determined it was medically necessary (and the opinion of the doctor was NOT to be questioned, i.e. if the doctor wanted to do the abortion it was medically necessary).

This is when the churches became involved, for the Medical Community sought out and obtain support of the Churches to restrict abortions to those performed by Doctors NOT mid wives. The Medical community at first had the state outlaw various unsafe abortion methods being sold as patent medicines, then more and more restrictions.

The main argument the Medical Community used on the Churches was the growing knowledge of HOW a fetus developed to show that "quickening" was NOT single event but the result of a long series of events going back to conception. Thus the medical community said the only valid point to use when determining a human life was conception and thus only a doctor should determine if it was medically necessary to end that life.

By the 1860s, the movement to change abortion law had escaped from the Medical Community. The Medical Community argument that conception was the only valid point to determine if someone was human had taken off and with it more and more laws banning abortion subject to medical necessity but making it the rule that the doctor's opinion could be challenged by the state. i.e. the doctor's opinion as to "Medically Necessary" could be reviewed by others, not the absolute rule that the Medical Community had wanted.

Thus in 1869, the Catholic Church changed its position from one it had had for 1400 years (i.e. what we call Roe vs Wade) to its present position that all abortions is the killing of a human being and thus murder. Most other religions adopted similar rules for the same reason, the Medical Community had determined the old cut off of Quickening was NOT valid, thus conception was the only act that separated what was clearly NOT human from what could be Human.

Yes, when does a fetus become a human is NOT a new debate, but it is the heart of the abortion debate. Given that a fetus born as early as the start of the third trimester have been known to survive even in ancient time is good evidence that such a fetus is a Human being. On the other hand, given modern medical technology we can NOT get any earlier fetus to survive outside a womb, the old cut off of Roe vs Wade and St Augustine and Aristotle may be the only workable rule.

Just a comment that the debate on when a Fetus becomes a Human Being is NOT new, but has always been the heart of any debate on abortion (and started with the MEDICAL COMMUNITY in the 1800s).

To say ALL fetuses are NOT human is to reject Roe vs Wade. At the same time to say all fetuses are human from conception is also to go against over 2500 years of experience (and it may be 6000 years of written records, we have some stories of when a fetus is considered human and not human in the bible).

[REP]

125. Human fetuses are human but not persons

Human fetuses can hardly be anything other than human, but that doesn't make them a human being. Birth does.

[happyslug]

130. That has NOT been the law for centuries, even under Roe vs Wade.

Your position has been rejected by EVERYONE, including most people who support abortion rights (and including people who oppose the recent laws restricting "late term abortions&quot .

If a Fetus is viable outside the womb, under Roe vs Wade it could NOT be aborted EXCEPT under certain restricted conditions. The reason behind that position was such a fetus was viable independent of its mother.

You may NOT like that position, but it is the position the Supreme Court supported in 1972 when it adopted Roe vs Wade. Read the opinion I did cite it, here is the critical paragraphs, the last three paragraphs of Section X of Roe vs Wade:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

[locks]

105. Great post

The UN World Health Organization is a specialized non-political health agency of the UN in Geneva. I was on their community Facebook sites trying to find out exactly what they are doing about ebola in spite of severe funding cuts. They have a number of face pages covering different areas of the world: one out of Geneva, Canada, Philippines, Asia etc. Most have some reports about the ebola work they are doing in West Africa, appeals for help, etc. but all have blogs where people can share health articles. The one from Asia has very little up-to-date info about any health news, and the blog is mostly articles from a Breast Cancer Site.
.
However, the first blog is from the Right Wing News Site and apparently sent from Assas India. It is a picture of a huge sign in caps: Abortion is the leading cause of death in the USA. 1,211,500 babies. NOT GUNS. So its sickening how liberals will use the murder of 20 children to promote an unconstitutional gun grab when they openly support over 2700 lives snuffed out daily through abortion. A little further down a very large picture of a fetus (Sandra Cesiana's photo 9/9) This is what we all looked like at 12 weeks in the womb. Legal to kill in all 50 states. Can anyone say that this is not a person?

AND one other blog: WHO shares link from greenmedinfo.com : 9/9 Study finds evidence for CDC cover-up of link between autism and mercury in vaccine. (They are supposed to be working in coordination with the CDC in every country and Obama will be at the CDC tomorrow to set out what more the US can do with WHO to contain the ebola outbreak).

This is what we are up against at some of the highest level of governments: misinformation, lack of sex and contraceptive education, political pandering to the right wing, making decisions for women, and in countries like India and Africa keeping born children in poverty, dying from diseases, and without hope.


,

[HereSince1628]

111. A fetus is a reproductive product of Homo sapiens

Go ahead, try to provide BS that a fetus is NOT a reproductive product of H. sapiens.

YOU CANNOT DO IT!

This line of reasoning leads to no good end.

EMBRACE THE REALITY!!!

Abortion is about a woman's right to protect herself.

[CTyankee]

116. women are moral agents and can make up their own mind about abortion..

Why not just leave it up to them to decide for themselves?

Why do a bunch of state legislators get to decide what a woman should or should not do with their own bodies?

[ncjustice80]

117. This country needs a legal definition of personhood.

I propose a fetus gains personhood up
1.) Completely exiting the wound, AND
2.) *Either* the umbilical cord is severed or the placenta has been ejected from the womb.

Until the above conditions are met, the fetus is regarded as a mass of tissue or organ belonging to the mothers body.

[Puzzledtraveller]

121. To me it is, but I don't impose that on others

I only mention it here to elucidate the discussion. I am neither pro-life, or pro-choice, I am pro-get out of our personal lives.

[seabeyond]

127. pro life would be anti war. anti death penalty. pro life would be feeding our hungry children.

that is how i read pro life.

[niyad]

134. biologically, a fetus is a parasite.

loved your op.

[ecstatic]

135. Common sense will always prevail. Once you veer too far off course when it comes

to common sense, we lose. Right wing wackos are just that. We don't have to bend over backwards with semantics to fight them because everyone (sane) sees them for what they are, and getting down to their level will make us look just as foolish. If a pregnant woman is attacked one day before her due date, she deserves whatever form of justice she feels is necessary. Instead of arguing with victims, let's just unite and vote to keep right wing teabaggers out of power.

[marym625]

138. A fetus is a parasite.

Brava! Thank you!

[ehrnst]

140. I think we should all start correcting anti-choicers when they talk about an "unborn child"

"You mean unborn teenager? Or unborn senior citizen? Because that's just as accurate, but not quite so cute."

[Heidi]

143. I absolutely agree.

[freebrew]

145. From the US Constitution...

defines citizenship at birth. The * administration set a precedent with the prisoners from their war on terra.

Not a US citizen, no US rights for you.

So, not a citizen(not born yet), no rights as defined by law.

I don't know how legal that sounds to anyone, but it seems the logical outcome if argued, to me.

[leftyladyfrommo]

146. I agree with you mostly.

But I think that if a woman is pregnant with a wanted child and both that woman and the unborn child are killed the killer should be charged with the death of both of them.

[R.Quinn]

153. This would suggest

that the life of both the mother and fetus are to be protected equally under the law.

Is that what you are meaning to suggest?

[riqster]

147. Very good point. Thank you.

[leftyladyfrommo]

150. I just feel like that is a whole different ballgame.

I have such mixed feelings myself over this issue. I just have to take it one case at a time. I believe absolutely in a woman's right to choice. But I wish people would be careful. It is a whole lot better for everyone if you just don't get pregnant in the first place if you don't want a child. That's a lot different than cases where pregnancy is the result of rape or incest - all that stuff.

[riqster]

154. Bear in mind, many locations in the USA are limiting access to birth control.

So just not getting pregnant is only an option if you forbid women from having sex.

It isn't as simple as "don't get pregnant".

[leftyladyfrommo]

156. I know.

I wish that women could all just having sex with men, all at the same time, and just stay with it until these guys begin to see the light.

One of the things that worries me the most about these super right wing guys is that they really don't believe in birth control of any kind. Women should just subjugate themselves and then deal happily with the life long consequences. And those children mean that those women probably will never have a life of their own. Once again they will be giving themselves up for the good of the next generation.

It's totally absurd.

[Cartoonist]

151. From the land of the Hidden.

Hi Folks.

Until a few years ago, I would have supported someone on DU calling a fetus a child under certain circumstance, but things have changed since then:
-
Funny how none of those things actually address the issue of viability. While they are valid reasons to intensify pro-choice feelings, it's really just semantics. If we were to stop using words because the right does, then we won't end up with anything to say.
Is a preemie a child or a fetus? Can an unwanted preemie be aborted?
I won't respond to any BS unless the last two questions are answered, or at least addressed. No one actually has to answer or respond to me.

[leftyladyfrommo]

158. No. I understand what you are saying.

And it bothers me, too. I just don't have any answers.

It's just not a simple issue. There are so many ramifications.

[KittyWampus]

160. You know what semantics are? Calling a fetus a child but if a woman opts for a late term abortion

due to medical reasons, she isn't "killing a child" OR "it's her choice to kill the child".

Until a fetus is delivered it is part of the woman's body. It is a fetus. Calling it that avoids all attempts to call any abortion murder.

A premature child is a child. I don't know what point you think that makes.

Can an unwanted preemie be aborted? That question makes no sense whatsoever. An undelivered fetus is not a "preemie". And there are limits on late term abortion.

According to YOUR semantics… a woman who finds out late in her pregnancy that the fetus will be born with half a brain and decides to abort is killing a child.

[MadrasT]

164. Your post makes no earthly sense whatsoever to me.

Is a preemie a child or a fetus?

A preemie is a child. It has been born.

A fetus is a fetus. It isn't born yet.

Can an unwanted preemie be aborted?

A preemie doesn't become a preemie until AFTER IT IS BORN. You can't abort (or contemplate aborting) a preemie because the definition of preemie requires birth to have already happened at which point abortion is no longer an option.

[Cartoonist]

167. Viability

That's the issue I am addressing. Let's say that the gestation period is 9 months exactly and child birth happens at 9 months and 1 day. On what day does a fetus become viable? Some science deniers say at the moment of conception. Some say at 9 months 1 day. I think the answer is somewhere in between. There have been some good points made by others in this thread as to what constitutes viability and when it happens. I don't mean a magical day when "ding" you are now viable. Let's say it happens at 8 months. Is it wrong to call an 8 month old a child? If you answer yes to that question, consider the next one.
A pregnant woman of 8 months is in on her way to a clinic to have an abortion. I fully support her right to do so. (Having said that, some will accuse me of being anti-choice. It actually happened.) Before she gets to the clinic, she is involved in a car accident. She is rushed to a hospital, survives and has the fetus removed by C-section. Is that preemie now a child? If I call an 8 month old fetus a child, I get my ass handed to me for being a right-wing misogynist. If I call that same 8 month old preemie a child, I get a pass. Something's wrong there.
Now then, what happens to the preemie? The woman was on the way to have an abortion. The child was delivered while she was unconscious. It is an unwanted child. Can it still be aborted? I'm guessing that most people will say no. I don't mean to put anyone on the spot, so don't answer if you are uncomfortable. I will consider the question rhetorical and will not answer here.

I believe these are valid questions and address the great divide between pro-choicers and those who call themselves pro-lifers. Asking these questions about viability should not be reason to have my post hidden or my presence barred. By shouting down those who have these same questions does not do the cause of reproductive rights any good. Instead they further antagonize people and prevent any kind of resolution.
I think we should address the issue of viability in order to get to the more important issue of a woman's health and well being. In my opinion, I believe the rights of the woman trumps the rights of the unborn. I said that too in another thread and was quickly called being anti-choice. Go figure.

[TBF]

155. From the Democratic Party Platform -

(which more folks obviously need to read and understand):

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

[ellennelle]

162. PERSONHOOD

as fervently as i support the bill to repeal citizens united, i think we'd have done much better to craft a bill that simply defines a person.

A PERSON IS A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN, BORN OF A MOTHER, THAT HUMAN LIFE FULLY EXPECTED TO END IN DEATH AT SOME POINT.

period. end of statement. end of bill.

this, my friends, takes care of both the rabid pro-life (not!) AND corporate power mongers in one swell foop.

done.

[harun]

163. That isn't the question though. The question

Is if it has any rights. Then if the rights of the mother over rule those rights. Then if the family, society and governments rights are involved.

[ellennelle]

165. see above

if personhood is defined, we don't have to decide if "it" has rights.

whether "it" is a fetus, or a corporation.

[harun]

169. Defined by whom?

I think we need to be very careful before stopping a beating heart.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

170. I'm old enough to remember the pre-abortion issue era....

Back when life began upon "The first breath of life".

Always remember. The Republican agenda on abortion has NOTHING to do with the woman or the fetus. It's all about Republicans putting on their super capes and saying, "Vote for me and I'll stop the child murdering Democrats." Then when they DO finally get a majority on the Supreme Court they do NOTHING on this issue.

They NEED this issue to remain to sucker their idiot followers into voting for them.

[fadedrose]

171. Two-way street

A woman who does not want a child, and has one anyway, will have an unwanted child she cannot love and it might it wish it did not have this woman for a mother.....prisons have more than their share of these unhappy kids...

It takes more than a pregnancy to make a mother.

[Lunacee_2013]

175. I see what you're saying and mostly agree,

but on a personal level, I don't really care what another woman calls it. Just so long as I have my rights and she has hers, I'm good. The far-right sure seems hell bent on changing that though, don't they? The LGBT legal groups seem to be winning a lot of court cases lately. Maybe we should take a page from their play book and fight back even harder. I'm no where near ready to give up my personal rights yet.