Abortion debate: mothers rights vs. fetal rights

http://www.mslaw.edu
Does the humanization of fetuses go hand in hand with the dehumanization of women and the loss of their civil rights? Professor Connie Rudnick interviews Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director, National Advocates of Pregnant Women, in this episode of The Massachusetts School of Law's Educational Forum, Abortion: New Turning Points.

The Massachusetts School of Law also presents information on important current affairs to the general public in television and radio broadcasts, an intellectual journal, conferences, author appearances, blogs and books. For more information visit mslawledu.


MSLAW podcasts are available on itunes (just search for mslaw) and at http://mslaw.libsyn.com/rss. MSLAW videos can also be found on Google.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• commentary
• analysis
• news
• choice
• pregnancy
• abortion
• law
• rights

[Sweetheartpandalove]

Feel bad for the mom who had a stillborn baby and went to court for that.

[setatliberty]

Wonders if there is anyone that does not cry when they see a baby being violently destroyed in an abortion??????Seriously.

[cahkontherahks]

@alasjajo You do realize that a fetus cannot exist without its mother, right? Also, one does not "believe" in evolution. The term "believe" implys a leap of faith. It takes no faith to understand the mechanics behind genetic mutation and natural selection. Do you even know what evolution is?

[cahkontherahks]

@alasjajo You do realize that there is a difference between life and personhood, right? You do realize that the only thing that seperates us from other mammals is our level of cognition, intelligence, problem solving skills and so on, right?

[alasjajo]

@cahkontherahks...the reason I disagree with that is, the first life forms being simple single celled organisms divided. Well, at the moment of conception the zygote exhibits that characteristic, along with others that determine life; like being stimulated, and responsive...

So, an abortion, reguardless of stage, would be killing a living thing. Is it not murder because that living thing is not considered a human? and then, what makes a human? WOW! definitions really are a major part in this...

[alasjajo]

@freewilllover ...so the holocaust was okay, cuz, well, it WAS legal!! :)

[alasjajo]

@jesusisbling ...along those lines we should ask a three year old if they want to live or someone with mental retardation...if they say no, should we destroy them too?

[alasjajo]

@cahkontherahks ...I disagree...to believe in evolution you have a belief in what's called a prokayrotic cell, said to be one of the, if not the 1st living thing on earth. An embryo at the moment of conception exhibits the same characteristics, thus, would be a living thing. If they don't have rights, why should we? An embryo is further developed at conception even...any thoughts...

[cahkontherahks]

@alasjajo Abortion is not a contradiction in evolution. The species will benefit from not having to use up resources to feed the baby and not having to spend time taking care it. Of course, this is a choice the group must make because the baby can grow to benefit the group quite a bit. Almost repay them, if you will. The grown baby can take care of the elders and raise more generations.

[alasjajo]

just wondering, can an evolutionist be okay with abortions?? That would be a contradiction.