This page is devoid of logic and deserves to be debunked. Not claiming to be a logician, I will however give it my best shot and may even call on help from some veritable thinkers on this topic. Stay tuned, I have a feeling this is going to be ongoing.
Focusing on the fetus always has dire legal and social consequences for women. As soon as we give special rights to fetuses, we separate them from their mothers and create an adversarial relationship that hurts both. - How to Think About the Fetus, by Joyce Arthur
To say we should not focus on the fetus would be as if we were involved in a traffic accident; we were driving the car that hit someone; we are shaken up, but not fatally wounded; however the person in the other car is killed. Well, let's not focus on that person, no we need to think about ourselves. True, the other person is dead, but do we really empathize with the person who is so relieved that he/she is okay while someone else died?
But, you say, a baby in the womb is not the same as a person in the other car. And there you betray the underlying belief that the unborn are not really human beings as the rest of the "seen" world is. Most pro-choice arguments can be brought back to the original issue that they do not see the unborn as human beings. That, however, is the crux of the entire abortion dilemma. Therefore, we have to focus on the fetus.
What is the difference between a woman who is pregnant and one who is not? Correct, the presence of "the fetus". I will use that term, even though I find it offensive. It came into usage with the pro-choice movement, precisely to avoid using the term baby. It is easier to do away with a "fetus". People don't get as upset because they now think of the baby as some kind of object that is not the same as them.
If the presence of a fetus is the difference between a pregnant and a non-pregnant woman, how can anyone say we should not focus on the fetus? Abortion is the premature removal of that fetus from the woman's body with the intent of killing it; therefore the focus has to be on the fetus.
The statement claims that putting our attention on the fetus has dire consequences for the woman. Excuse me, but don't forget who dies in the abortion procedure. Who suffers the dire consequences of that decision? This puts the woman in opposition to the child; it pits her so-called "rights" against the right of the child to live. Those rights are not equal; weighing them against each other is unbalanced; the woman does not die if she goes through the pregnancy, the fetus always dies in an abortion.
Granting rights to the fetus creates an adversarial relationship between the woman and her child? So one should abort the fetus in order to avoid this conflict? Even if the child is unwanted, it is only unwanted for the nine months from conception to birth; immediately after birth, someone else somewhere who wants that child will kindly take it off its mother's hands and raise it. The adversarial relationship is short-lived; women can get on with their lives and so can the child. Win-win situation in my opinion.
Focusing on the fetus also devalues women, because it usurps their moral decision-making, as well as their bodies and wombs. How to Think About the Fetus, by Joyce Arthur
Since when does focusing on another person devalue someone? This statement comes from the worldview that I am the one who matters the most in my decisions. It denies the fact that many decisions taken out of consideration for the other person can be good decisions, both for the other and for oneself. One could seriously question whether, in fact, decisions that focus just on the self, are moral decisions. Morals by definition are the principles of behaviour that we agree upon in order to live together with others. If I am the only person around, it doesn't matter what decision I make; it affects no one else, therefore it has no morality. It only becomes a moral decision when others are involved. By definition, moral decisions involve the other.
The best way to protect fetuses and children is to support pregnant women and mothers. - Joyce Arthur
This statement appears at the end of the first section on the page and seems incongruously out of place. It appears to be a statement by a pro-life person. Be that as it may, let it stand. I have no quibble with it.
Society cannot decide what the fetus is. There’s a wide divergence of opinion on whether a fetus is a person, or a human being, and what its moral value should be. Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus, and neither does society as a whole. - How to Think about the Fetus, by Joyce Arthur
I don't have any idea why someone would state the above. It is so obviously untrue.
Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. - Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D., former abortionist and founding member of National Abortion Rights Action League of the USA
As early as 1970:
Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. - A New Ethic for Medicine and Society, editorial in California Medicine, Sept 1970
Abortionists know that the fetus is a human being; Dr. Joseph Bruner is a surgeon who performs neo-natal surgery. He specializes in utero spina bifida operations.
.... to ease the strain Dr. Bruner often talks to the unborn children while he works - to soothe them and keep them quiet, and to let them know what is going on. Sometimes he conveys a message from the parents, "We love you. We are trying our best to help." - Atlanta Journal Constitution, 8 April 2000
But Dr. Bruner also performs abortions on children with spina bifida. He is paid to either save or kill children depending upon whether or not they are wanted by their parents. He says this is
an increasingly difficult position to be in. Because we are performing surgery to improve the lifestyle of fetuses who have spina bifida, it is diffcult to justify an operation that could also take that life away. As we walk through this mine field, society is going to have to take a good, hard look at itself, because it is untenable to hold both views. - "Baby Samuel and Mother Doing Well after Fetal Surgery", WorldNet Daily, 16 Feb 2000
The "difficult position" is created precisely because of the argument by pro choice people that the fetus is not human, is not a person. They continue to muddy the waters because they cannot afford to have their "choice" taken away; but the medical community is absolutely clear upon the state of the unborn. They have no doubt whatsoever that this is a human being in a certain stage of development.
There will never be a consensus on what the fetus is, because this question is inherently subjective and unscientific. It's a matter of personal opinion. We all have our own opinions about what the moral status of the fetus might be. Some people believe a fertilized egg is a full human being with an absolute right to life that supersedes any right of the woman. Others believe that a fetus attains moral value only after it becomes viable, or upon birth. But that's all these beliefs are - opinions. There's no way to decide between them, because they're entirely subjective and emotional.
That's why we must give the benefit of the doubt to women and let them decide the value of their fetuses - because women are indisputable human beings and person with rights. - How to Think About the Fetus, by Joyce Arthur
First, the question is neither subjective nor unscientific. The scientific evidence is in; the unborn are indeed human beings, not potential human beings, but human beings with potential. And to use the standard of viability to determine moral value of the fetus is leaving the issue wide open to constant change, as the age of viability is becoming younger and younger with medical advances. These statements are purely emotional statements made by someone who is not prepared to look at objective evidence, but is loudly defending her own position with all the ammunition she has. But it is not enough.
A society that leaves the valuing of human life to one group of humans is in for disaster. Remember Nazi Germany, where Hitler deemed the Jews not to be persons of value but considered them parasites to be exterminated; consider Britain and the United States of America, when slavery was practised and blacks were not considered persons; even in our own country of Canada, aboriginals and natives and yes, women, were not considered human beings with the same rights as others. The value of any person's life can never be left to another to decide. Human life has intrinsic value and we must guard that; without that belief, we leave the value of human life wide open to every wind of change. Yesterday, it was the Jews who were not considered worthy of life; tomorrow it will be the handicapped and those with dementia; who can stop that train of death if we let it travel unimpeded?
In speaking of American blacks, Bernard Nathanson says:
American blacks were deemed unfit to be received as fully qualified members of country clubs, fraternities, or professional organizations - they were deemed unfit by those who deemed themselves fit. But who deemed the "deemers" fit?
Pro-choice advocates have deemed that women are the ones fit to decide who gets to sit at the table of life. They have decided that women have the capability and wisdom required to make that decision. Who decided they had that wisdom or capability? The very people who wish to defend the taking of innocent life. I, and many others, do not "deem" them capable of that decision.
Next topic - "a fetus is not innocent .. it is co-opting the woman's body and endangering her life and health against her will"