On abortion

[byu71]

The only universally agreed standard at which a fetus' right to life equals the mother's is birth. Anything before--even third trimester fetus--relies on some extra worldly logic.

After the mother's life, then does the fetus have status with all others? My understanding is that if a mother is murdered and the fetus dies, it is considered a double homicide. Why isn't a homicide and then a theft of something the mother possessed?

If the fetus has as much rights after the mothers life, why is it a mother can choose to end the life even if hers is not in danger, but the husband can't.

[TripletDaddy]

You really need to let go of this "alive" language. Of course it's alive. So is a fertilized egg. The better question is when does the fetus acquire fully human rights, equal to the mother. And no, that doesn't occur until birth.

As a physician, if I'm treating a pregnant woman, the woman's life comes first, then the fetus'. This is the standard of care--they are not treated equally.

Another reason such a standard is impractical is that is raises the question of who advocates on behalf of the fetus over the rights of the mother? Does the mother incur liability towards the fetus since her rights are subordinate to the fetus? Can the state sue a woman for negligence when she miscarries? Ridiculous and untenable to give superior right to a fetus.

[ERCougar]

So in your laid out plan then a baby only receives rights after birth? So a mother could terminate a baby at 40 weeks? You are a doctor, are you saying that you don't believe that baby is alive at that point in time? You are right I am not certain when life begins, but I don't think it should be out of the purview of society to determine when it is that a baby has certain rights that may not be violated. All laws are determinations based on questions of morality. Why should this one be any different?

You really need to let go of this "alive" language. Of course it's alive. So is a fertilized egg. The better question is when does the fetus acquire fully human rights, equal to the mother. And no, that doesn't occur until birth.

As a physician, if I'm treating a pregnant woman, the woman's life comes first, then the fetus'. This is the standard of care--they are not treated equally.

[byu71]

Steven Pinker refutes the abortion/crime drop in The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Are there any statistics that show what sectors have the largest abortion rate? Poor, middle class, rich? Whites, blacks, hispanics, asians? Religious people, atheists?

If the highest rate of abortions is among the poor and minorities, why couldn't you conlcude that their is a correlation with the crime rate going down? Oh, oh. Is that a Paul Ryan moment? Am I antic poor and a racist for even asking the question?

[imanihonjin]

Ok, not my clearest moment. I'm just echoing what NWC has pointed out. The only point that we can all agree that a fetus acquires full human rights is birth--anything before that point relies on some moral/theological code that lacks any clear standard. You might have your point, but everyone else has theirs, ranging from fertilization to birth. You're not even able to define yours with any useful measure. Roe v Wade tried to with a viability standard, but that's not even going to work very soon, as technology advances.

So in your laid out plan then a baby only receives rights after birth? So a mother could terminate a baby at 40 weeks? You are a doctor, are you saying that you don't believe that baby is alive at that point in time? You are right I am not certain when life begins, but I don't think it should be out of the purview of society to determine when it is that a baby has certain rights that may not be violated. All laws are determinations based on questions of morality. Why should this one be any different?