Explain why you can't smother your 1 and 2 year old

[Anonymous]

when you could have aborted them. The mother's reason was apparently the same reason why many people have abortions: she just didn't want the responsibility. Logically, what's the difference? This is an honest question. Why as a society are we horrified by the one act but have enshrined the other in our Constitution? I would really like to hear the best rational answer from the pro-choice folks.

[Anonymous]

This is a useless debate -- really. People on opposite sides of the issue fundamentally view the morals differently. It's not worth the fight. Nobody's going to change the other's mind.

[Anonymous]

OK. I'll play just for fun.

The right you think is "enshrined in our Constitution" isn't really all that. The Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade made clear that there were three phases of pregnancy (I am really reaching back to ConLaw class many years ago, so those out there for whom this is more fresh, please correct me). Phase I - the first trimester. At that point, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. At that point, the woman's ability to make choices for herself and her body is pretty much unfettered. Phase II - second trimester. During this phase of pregnancy, there is a bit of a balancing test, in which the state's interest in the unborn child (which, at the time of quickening, usually 24 weeks, the fetus mgiht be able to survive outside the womb). Some limitations on the women's right to choose is permitted. Third phase - third trimester. At this point the baby does not need the mother to survive. Therefore, the State's interest in the baby outweighs the mother's in most circumstances. This is why the debate over "late term abortions" tends to be over things like whether there can be an exception for the life or health of the mother and what she has to prove to meet those standards. So it is not as if a pregnant woman can walk into the hospital one day before her due date and say, "You know what? I changed my mind. I want to abort." At that point, the State's interest in the baby outweighs the mom's right to choose.

The right to an abortion is found in the penumbra of the first amendment, as are all privacy rights. Starting with Griswold v Connecticut, which gave married women the right to access birth control, people of different races to marry (Loving v Virginia), and so on. None of these rights are specifically on the face of the First Amendment, but have been found by the Court nonetheless, so if you want to take away abortion rights, you probably have to give states the right to say who can access birth control, what you can do in your bedroom and with whom, and who can get married in every contest (not just the Prop 8 one).

So, the difference between Shaquan (or whatever her name is) and someone aborting in the first trimester is huge from a legal standpoint. And, to my mind, a moral standpoint as well.

[Anonymous]

Not looking for a fight, looking for an answer.

[Anonymous]

OP again. After Casey it's not rooted in the privacy penumbra anymore, but in substantive due process (it's a liberty right, the plurality said). I'm a lawyer, too.

Not interested in legal arguments. Just genuinely interested in how from a "moral standpoint," as you say, some people can be fine with one decision and not with the other. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

difference is this woman's children could have lived without her, and would've have been better off without her.

[Anonymous]

Laws draw lines. On one side, it's legal. On the other side, it's not.

[Anonymous]

Are you speaking about all abortions across the board or after a certain point in the pregnancy? I think that legal arguments aside, that question is inextricable to where you stand on the issue. Clearly, different people draw their lines at different stages of pregnancy and whether that is based on their sense of morality or their understanding of biology, religion, etc., it's all different. In my opinion, I don't think that we should impose our standards of when human life begins on other people. I see there to be a clear line between a born child and one still in utero. I would say most people do too. But there is definitely no "majority" opinion on when life begins when in utero. It's a question of individual belief and it can't be imposed on others. (I hope that this isn't gibberish because I'm extremely tired and this is not an easy topic to articulate even on my best and most clear day!)

[Anonymous]

The moral distinction that I draw? Your one year old can't kill you. But your fetus can. Pregnancy almost killed me. I had my tubes tied to prevent pregnancy again and it's extremely high risk to me, but if I somehow got pregnant again I would immediately abort.

[Anonymous]

a one year old is a person, a fetus is a fetus, not a person.

[Anonymous]

a fetus is a potential person.

[Anonymous]

Right, and I'm the potential president, but they still won't let me in the White House.

[Anonymous]

we're never going to convince each other when a fetus is a person. Maybe to you, it's the heartbeat and to me it's capability of life outside the womb and for someone else it's actually being born. Isn't the point that it's unclear and therefore, the "perception" of one person shouldn't be imposed on another?

Having said that, the most compelling pro-life argument came from my friend who said something like this: We as a society value human life, and if there is even a remote possibility that a fetus is a human life then shouldn't we value it?" That, to me, was the most compelling MORAL argument for one group to impose their will on another.
(I'm still pro choice though)

[Anonymous]

Right, and I'm the potential president, but they still won't let me in the White House.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Anonymous]

Is this a serious question? Are you seriously comparing the termination of a pregnancy at, say, 6 weeks to the smothering of two living, breathing children?

If this woman did not want the responsibility of having children (and she had three of them, two of which she murdered) she should have used birth control or visited the clinic as soon as she found out she was pregnant. Same with Casey Anthony, Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Kimberly Ann Trenor, and every other mother who murders their children or is an accomplice to their murder.

You cannot compare an embryo, a zygote, or a fetus up to the time of viability to a living, breathing child.