So the Secretary of Health, Kathleen Sebelius, and the FDA announce a new campaign (with graphic images) coming out in 2012 to discourage smoking.  Okay.  I certainly would not recommend anyone ever smoke b/c it is definitely a health risk.  One of Sebelius' concerns is the effect smoking has on children.  There will be images to discourage pregnant women from smoking because of the harm it can cause to their unborn child.  Okay.  Don't disagree with that either.  What I find curious, however, is that the Secretary is pro-choice when it comes to abortion but not so much when it comes to smoking.  She's against a woman's choice to smoke b/c it can harm her unborn child but she's for a woman's choice to kill that same unborn child.  Don't harm your unborn child, but it's okay to kill your unborn child.  Am I missing something here?!

Good question.

 

Maybe a case of “it’s ok to kill your fetus before it’s born, but if you’re going to give birth to it you have an obligation to ensure that its health at birth is not compromised by anything you do to your own body during pregnancy”. Although “killing the fetus” seems to be frowned upon as being too clinical, not to mention raising uncomfortably sticky moral questions, so “termination of a pregnancy … closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” seems to be the preferred euphemism.

She's against a woman's choice to smoke b/c it can harm her unborn child but she's for a woman's choice to kill that same unborn child. Don't harm your unborn child, but it's okay to kill your unborn child. Am I missing something here?!
==============
She is not legislating to ban women from smoking while pregnant, she is *discouraging* it because a baby brought to term that has a smoking mother will have serious health problems that will have to be dealt with by the parents and doctors, or even the state depending if the parents have health insurance or not. Terminated pregnancies don't have this as an issue.

Apparently the "it's my body, I can do what I want to" argument works with regard to abortion but not with smoking.  I realize the smoking campaign is not a ban but the FDA is putting graphic stuff out there to try to put a stop to smoking but they don't do the same thing when it comes to abortion.

She is not legislating to ban women from smoking while pregnant, she is *discouraging* it because a baby brought to term that has a smoking mother will have serious health problems that will have to be dealt with by the parents and doctors, or even the state depending if the parents have health insurance or not. Terminated pregnancies don't have this as an issue.

 

When smoking is the issue, it's a baby ("baby brought to term") but when abortion is the issue, it's a "terminated pregnancy"?


I realize she is not banning smoking, but is trying to strongly discourage it.  But why discourage a choice that can harm a baby but do nothing about a choice that kills a baby?

When smoking is the issue, it's a baby ("baby brought to term") but when abortion is the issue, it's a "terminated pregnancy"?
==============================
Yes, that does seem to be the case, doesn't it?
*
I realize she is not banning smoking, but is trying to strongly discourage it.  But why discourage a choice that can harm a baby but do nothing about a choice that kills a baby?
===========================
 If society  can accept  the far too common act of putting down of live animals of any age, creed, deed or intelligence because there is no one willing or able to take care of them, then surely society can survive the occasional choice of elective abortion, especially when the vast majority are mostly conducted quite early on in a pregnancy. Of course society can...  it has been doing so since the dawn of time.. Really our focus should be on contraception so abortion is less of an issue ...as former President Bill Clinton said "abortion should be safe, legal and rare." Since you are against abortion, surely then you out there promoting better access to birth control?

She is not legislating to ban women from smoking while pregnant, she is *discouraging* it because a pregnancy brought to term via a smoking mother will produce a baby with serious health problems that will have to be dealt with by the parents and doctors, or even the state depending if the parents have health insurance or not. Terminated pregnancies don't have this as an issue.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

After reading my original words in addition to your response to them, I have written a slightly altered version of my paragraph inspired by the wording you took issue with. I hope it is clearer.

 

If society  can accept  the far too common act of putting down of live animals of any age, creed, deed or intelligence because there is no one willing or able to take care of them, then surely society can survive the occasional choice of elective abortion, especially when the vast majority are mostly conducted quite early on in a pregnancy. Of course society can...  it has been doing so since the dawn of time.. Really our focus should be on contraception so abortion is less of an issue ...as former President Bill Clinton said "abortion should be safe, legal and rare." Since you are against abortion, surely then you out there promoting better access to birth control?

I am all for humane treatment of animals but I wouldn't put animals and humans/babies on the same level.  However, it seems that you do.  Is that right?


Occasional choice of elective abortion?  I think we have a different take on what constitutes occasional.


The fact that a society accepts/allows something does not mean it is right or moral.  Can and does is totally different than ought.


You mention that the vast majority of abortions are conducted early on in the pregnancy implying that it is not so bad if done early as opposed to late.  Based on your other post that clarifies your earlier comments, why does it matter if the abortion is early or late if it's just a "pregnancy" and not a baby until it comes full term/born?  And why does it matter that abortion be rare?  If there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with abortion, then why should it be rare? 

Maybe people would focus more on contraception if abortion were illegal.  I don't think access to contraception is the big problem.  Access to self-control probably is.  And the validity of my position has nothing to do with whether I am championing contraception or not.  However, I do support our local pregnancy resource center.

She is not legislating to ban women from smoking while pregnant, she is *discouraging* it because a pregnancy brought to term via a smoking mother will produce a baby with serious health problems that will have to be dealt with by the parents and doctors, or even the state depending if the parents have health insurance or not. Terminated pregnancies don't have this as an issue.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

After reading my original words in addition to your response to them, I have written a slightly altered version of my paragraph inspired by the wording you took issue with. I hope it is clearer.

It's clear.  But I still don't understand how a baby is not a baby during pregnancy and is only a baby when it's born.  It's okay to kill a baby (or terminate a pregnancy) a day before it's due to be born but would not be okay to kill the baby a day after it is born.  That's what I deduce if I am understanding your position clearly.

But why discourage a choice that can harm a baby but do nothing about a choice that kills a baby? [Post #5]

 

While there certainly are some intricacies to the issue it seems to me that you’re making some heavy weather of a basic and fairly evident distinction – possibly for rhetorical reasons that seem a little obscure at best. And that distinction seems to be based on the clear dividing line between life and death and a number of very different consequences and obligations and permissions that pertain to those different states. And it’s not like the situation or concept is all that uncommon – from the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” to “the line in the sand” to “tipping points”.

 

In the case of abortion it is certainly debatable at what point a fetus can be considered a person – of course the subject of a recent referendum – and acquire the full set of attendant protections of “personhood”, but, though somewhat arbitrary, “inside the womb” and “in the first trimester” seems to be a reasonable compromise between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus – a reasonable point to draw the line. However, on the other side of the line, on the life side, the balance seems to shift somewhat such that if the fetus is going to be allowed to live there is an obligation, and some wisdom and social benefits, in ensuring that its health at birth is not compromised by anything that the woman does to her body during pregnancy.

But I still don't understand how a baby is not a baby during pregnancy and is only a baby when it's born.
====================
That's not my problem.
*
It's okay to kill a baby (or terminate a pregnancy) a day before it's due to be born but would not be okay to kill the baby a day after it is born
=================
Who said that?
*
. That's what I deduce if I am understanding your position clearly.
====================
That is probably because this is an emotional issue for you, which is why you are being extreme in your deductions about your "understanding" of my "position." We haven't even begun to discuss "my" position.

Smoking can affect a child when it is born because of the damage caused by prenatal smoking .  Why is it hard to understand that a pregnancy ended in its early stages simpy prevents a child's being born. If you were equating the problem of smoking causing abortion, that would make more sense. However if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy, there is no child to live deformed. It is about being a person or an embryo.

You can say killing a fetus (although all abortions do NOT involve fetuses) just as you can say killing a sperm or a bacterium.

One cannot abort a full term baby so that is quite a difference.

There is no problem in discouraging anyone from aborting.It is making abortion illegal that is the problem. I see videos at the mall all the time discouraging abortion. I am pro choice and I have no problem with being informed about that.

I am all for humane treatment of animals but I wouldn't put animals and humans/babies on the same level. However, it seems that you do. Is that right?
=====================
I put live animals on equal footing with developing human fetuses, yes. Not that this is something i think about much but you are pressing me to consider it and so I am. And in pondering this question I think anout the fact that I would never wish to kill or harm an animal but the fact is i wear leather and i eat meat. Does that make me an evil animal killer and a hypocrite? To some, yes. And I can live with that. As for abortion, I value human life too, but I also feel strongly that a woman should not be forced to carry a child to term if she is unwilling or incapable of doing so, and I am supportive of any woman who makes this decision. Does that make me a baby killer and a hypocrite? To some, yes. And I can live with that too.
*
Occasional choice of elective abortion? I think we have a different take on what constitutes occasional.
================
I am sure we do.
*
The fact that a society accepts/allows something does not mean it is right or moral. Can and does is totally different than ought.
====================
That is true.
*
You mention that the vast majority of abortions are conducted early on in the pregnancy implying that it is not so bad if done early as opposed to late. Based on your other post that clarifies your earlier comments, why does it matter if the abortion is early or late if it's just a "pregnancy" and not a baby until it comes full term/born?
=================
Because the more developed a fetus gets, the more likely it can survive outside of the womb, and once it can survive outside of the womb the issue what constitutes "personhood" shifts dramatically.
*
And why does it matter that abortion be rare? If there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with abortion, then why should it be rare?
=======================
There are certainly ethical issues with abortion, no one relishes the idea of doing it, though you speak as if people do, but then again this is an emotional issue for you. It should be rare because it not an ideal situation.
*
Maybe people would focus more on contraception if abortion were illegal.
=========================
Really? Tell that to the world's one billion Catholics. ;) Personally, I think that is a fantasy, pastor, but you can certainly own it as your personal opinion.
*
I think it has only been recently that birth control... I don't think access to contraception is the big problem. =================
I disagree. My feeling is that if people had honest education about and access to birth control there would far less unintended pregnancy.... because peole would be using it, *and* using it correctly.
*
And the validity of my position has nothing to do with whether I am championing contraception or not. However, I do support our local pregnancy resource center.
==================
Okay. I am actually glad that you are the kind of person who backs up your beliefs with action, regardless of whether I agree with them. To be honest, this is not the most pressing issue for me, especially in the light of all the craziness in the world, and particularly with what is going on politically in our country right now... I choose to focus my energy on what goes on outside of the womb. Blessed be.

  But I still don't understand how a baby is not a baby during pregnancy and is only a baby when it's born.
-----------------------------
 It starts out an embryo, then becomes fetus, and when it reaches 20 weeks of development it can no longer be aborted because it is, at that time considered the same as a baby. . So we are not talking of a small difference in terms that change at birth. The fact that late term abortions are illegal  shows that it is based on development5 and the ability to survive outside the womb.

You can say killing a fetus (although all abortions do NOT involve fetuses) just as you can say killing a sperm or a bacterium.

One could say that but I think he or she would be wrong.  A fetus is a human being.  Biogenesis says that all beings reproduce after their own kind.  So, two human beings can only reproduce another human being.  An unborn child/fetus is the conception of two human beings so it's a human being.  So killing a fetus is not the same as killing a sperm and such.

There is no problem in discouraging anyone from aborting.It is making abortion illegal that is the problem. I see videos at the mall all the time discouraging abortion. I am pro choice and I have no problem with being informed about that.

Why is making abortion illegal a problem? 

You mention that the vast majority of abortions are conducted early on in the pregnancy implying that it is not so bad if done early as opposed to late. Based on your other post that clarifies your earlier comments, why does it matter if the abortion is early or late if it's just a "pregnancy" and not a baby until it comes full term/born?
=================
Because the more developed a fetus gets, the more likely it can survive outside of the womb, and once it can survive outside of the womb the issue what constitutes "personhood" shifts dramatically.

Suppose a baby boy is born at, let's say, 22 weeks.  He would probably be about 1 lb. and fit inside the palm of your hand.  The odds would certainly be stacked against his survival, but let's say he does survive.  What if someone came into the hospital nursery and deliberately killed that baby boy?  Would you agree that this would be murder?  Now, take that same baby boy at 22 weeks but still in the womb.  The mom decides to have an abortion.  You would say this is okay, correct?  How is it that this baby boy's location determines if he has human rights or not?