Elizabeth Smart, raped? (and Abortion issues)

[Coyote]

Freako Mitchell (the kidnapper, who goes by the handle "Emanuel") was kicked out of the Mormon Church for being too weird and his own mother filed a restraining order against him, as well as his two ex-wives. Supposedly, God told him that he should have another wife (he had the common-law wife, she's older than him. He's 49).

My guess is the two of them wanted kids but the common-law wife is too old (I've heard anywhere from 50-60 years of age, the press said she is "considerably older" than he is). So they kidnapped her and probably spent most of the time making her docile and to get her to Stockholm over to their side.

There is a chance he was waiting for her brainwashing to be complete before trying to impregnate her. So far the press has indicated that she has not gone to the hospital since being reunited-- I'm sure if she was pregnant she would have gone in even if only for a checkup.

But we'll have to wait and see what the facts are on this. And BTW, regardless of the laws of the land, the real factor here is the Mormon religion. It doesn't matter if abortion is 100% legal or not, a familiy's religious beliefs will determine if there is to be an abortion or not. Mormons typically do not allow abortion but adoption if the man and woman cannot marry (obviously the case here). But this is an odd case.

Mrs. Smart (the mother) was big on charity, that's why they hired poor and indigent workers to perform tasks for them around the house-- jobs as a form of charity. While that is kind-hearted of her, she seems to have thrown judgement out the window as well.

And the reason this case makes so much news is, indeed, because it is so rare for kidnapped children to ever be found. Usually, not even bodies are recovered. This is a very unusual event.

[Knife]

Mrs. Smart (the mother) was big on charity, that's why they hired poor and indigent workers to perform tasks for them around the house-- jobs as a form of charity. While that is kind-hearted of her, she seems to have thrown judgement out the window as well.

Seems to fit a pattern for the family, one of misguided philanthropy.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Bad Ted, no cookie

Shameless anti-US flamebaiting.

off to the HOS.

[Stormbringer]

I could be wrong but it's the second trimester where the brain begins to develop. To kill it then could only be called murder. No matter how many abortions it affects it's murder flat out.

The question isn't when the brain begins to develop; the question is when does sentient activity begin? Just because it has a brain doesn't mean that it's deserving of rights. Early in the third trimester, the fetus' brain is monitored to have electrical activity similar to that of a normal human who is in a dream-like state. This seems like a good indication of sentience and human-like brain activity.

At that point it's an awfully fine line. Unless the mother's health is in danger I see no reason to kill a fetus that damn well might be alive.

[Stormbringer]

Bad Ted, no cookie

Shameless anti-US flamebaiting.

off to the HOS.

Since this seems to be a pretty reasonable discussion and not a smoldering pit of flames I see no reason to Hall of Shame it. I'm moving it to SLAM.

[ArmorPierce]

Which BTW what is it about the Smart family that they seemed to have an army of "handymen" working arounnd the house??? They couldn't hire a contractor or something to do the work that these strange drifters woudl do??? There was another suspect in the case that worked as a hnadyman in the house.

They say that it was to help the homeless out. I think that in actuallity it was to get cheap labor.

[Darth Wong]

The question isn't when the brain begins to develop; the question is when does sentient activity begin? Just because it has a brain doesn't mean that it's deserving of rights. Early in the third trimester, the fetus' brain is monitored to have electrical activity similar to that of a normal human who is in a dream-like state. This seems like a good indication of sentience and human-like brain activity.

Regardless, it is a neanderthal activity tanatamount to leaving unwanted newborns on the ground to die.

I have never seen a more beautiful example of the "wall of ignorance" technique. Notice how Durandal gives a clear, well-argued statement against treating fetuses as babies until they reach the third trimester, and this idiot dismisses it with one word: "regardless". Then, he simply restates his claim that they're the same thing.

How are we supposed to call ourselves an enlightend society when we kill the unwanted byproducts of our hormones?

How are we supposed to call ourselves an enlightened society when we produce morons such as yourself, who can't argue your way out of a paper bag and who don't seem to recognize that without a brain, there is no thought and therefore a state of brain-death, hence it is NOT the same thing as a newborn? How can we call ourselves an enlightened society when we produce idiots who think that a state of equality between 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses, for which they have only subjective gut feelings and/or religious nonsense in support, should actually outweight the rights of living, talking, breathing women who would be forced to undergo the trauma of childbearing and childbirth just to satisfy the conditions that you cannot even justify except to simply ignore criticism?

[Queeb Salaron]

I have a hypothetical situation here....

Assume for a minute that young Ms. Smart was raped. It has been nine months since her abduction. Say this weirdo Mitchell raped her in their third month on the road (which, if the FBI's info is correct, puts them in San Diego. But that's irrelevant.)

Now she's been found, and she's pregnant, raped by her abductor and forced to carry the child against her will. This is a child she doesn't want, a child that if she kept would only remind her of the mental and physical torment that she had endured over the past 9 months. And now she is 6 months pregnant, the start of her third trimester.

This is also a child that no one else would dare raise. Who could possibly raise the unwanted child of a young girl raped by a religious fanatic? Imagine the mental disorder that this child would be raised to upon discovering his personal history. It is a tragedy in every sense of the word, a travesty to humanity embodied in flesh and bone.

Now what do we think about partial-birth abortion?

[The Dark]

By the way, as one who holds a degree in anthropology, I am not aware of any evidence of Neandertalls having or providing abortions. Now, there are Eskimo tribes that, because of the snowy climate, will leave their infants to die when they are burdon to the group...

As one working on a degree in philosophy, I can say that it appears the Eskimos were morally justified in that practice. Survival was by such a razor's edge that a single extra mouth to feed was quite literally the difference between life and death for the tribe. I would be against such practices today, when it's easier to obtain supplies (though it's still difficult in many parts of Alaska). Even if the clan/tribe cannot support the child, it should be possible to get them to a town where they can be adopted. However, I would argue that in the relatively low-technology society that existed when contact was first made, the policy of infant abandonment was superior from a utilitarian ethical point of view. The end result is more happiness for more people (since the majority of the group survives at the expense of only one, rather than all dying because of the extra one).

[Joe]

By the way, as one who holds a degree in anthropology, I am not aware of any evidence of Neandertalls having or providing abortions. Now, there are Eskimo tribes that, because of the snowy climate, will leave their infants to die when they are burdon to the group...

As one working on a degree in philosophy, I can say that it appears the Eskimos were morally justified in that practice. Survival was by such a razor's edge that a single extra mouth to feed was quite literally the difference between life and death for the tribe. I would be against such practices today, when it's easier to obtain supplies (though it's still difficult in many parts of Alaska). Even if the clan/tribe cannot support the child, it should be possible to get them to a town where they can be adopted. However, I would argue that in the relatively low-technology society that existed when contact was first made, the policy of infant abandonment was superior from a utilitarian ethical point of view. The end result is more happiness for more people (since the majority of the group survives at the expense of only one, rather than all dying because of the extra one).

Ah, James Rachels again, that guy knows his shit.

[The Dark]

Ah, James Rachels again, that guy knows his shit.

Yeah, but I decided to throw a bit of Bartham in there also. Mill wouldn't work, since his Rule Utilitarianism would force the Eskimos to keep the child even when it wasn't in their best interest, because in general it's best to allow children to survive.

And thanks for mentioning it was Rachels. I almost said John Rawls, because we've been working on theories of economic justice. We're doing the whirlwind tour of ethics: Suicide and euthanasia to economic justice to animal rights to the death penalty to affirmative action to war. My philosophy professor's jokingly accusing me of doing the impossible: being a modern liberal libertarian . Hey, as opposed to fascism, it works. I'm still working out some contradictions, but I'll have it down in a few more years (I hope).

[Queeb Salaron]

As one working on a degree in philosophy, I can say that it appears the Eskimos were morally justified in that practice. Survival was by such a razor's edge that a single extra mouth to feed was quite literally the difference between life and death for the tribe. I would be against such practices today, when it's easier to obtain supplies (though it's still difficult in many parts of Alaska). Even if the clan/tribe cannot support the child, it should be possible to get them to a town where they can be adopted. However, I would argue that in the relatively low-technology society that existed when contact was first made, the policy of infant abandonment was superior from a utilitarian ethical point of view. The end result is more happiness for more people (since the majority of the group survives at the expense of only one, rather than all dying because of the extra one).

This is all well and good, but it still doesn't address the desires of the Eskimo mother who might want to keep the baby, regardless of how much of a burden it is. Children are, after all, a bit burdensome even today. And we can't go around killing children simply because they are burdensome. There would be a whole lot of dead babies, if that were the case. I know I wouldn't be here.

[Joe]

As one working on a degree in philosophy, I can say that it appears the Eskimos were morally justified in that practice. Survival was by such a razor's edge that a single extra mouth to feed was quite literally the difference between life and death for the tribe. I would be against such practices today, when it's easier to obtain supplies (though it's still difficult in many parts of Alaska). Even if the clan/tribe cannot support the child, it should be possible to get them to a town where they can be adopted. However, I would argue that in the relatively low-technology society that existed when contact was first made, the policy of infant abandonment was superior from a utilitarian ethical point of view. The end result is more happiness for more people (since the majority of the group survives at the expense of only one, rather than all dying because of the extra one).

This is all well and good, but it still doesn't address the desires of the Eskimo mother who might want to keep the baby, regardless of how much of a burden it is. Children are, after all, a bit burdensome even today. And we can't go around killing children simply because they are burdensome. There would be a whole lot of dead babies, if that were the case. I know I wouldn't be here.

With all due respect, I didn't write that.

[Enlightenment]

One thing I've noticed about the perpetual US abortion debate is that most of the people who believe in banning abortions are also pro-death penalty, frequently to the point of supporting the execution of minors. It's an amazing display of hypocracy, granting a greater right to live for live that has the potential to be human than for life that is human.

[HemlockGrey]

You do realize that by 'burdensome' what he actually means is 'either the baby dies, or the tribe dies', right?

[Anarchist Bunny]

Today I heard from someone(can't remember who, reliability of the source is questionable) is that the people that had Smart had 3 other childern that they molested, but they escaped when they were teens, and one of the daughters said that Smart looked like she did when her father was molesting her. Also I've heard that Smart was denying who she was when the cops were interviewing her, so their could be some brainwashing.

[The Dark]

This is all well and good, but it still doesn't address the desires of the Eskimo mother who might want to keep the baby, regardless of how much of a burden it is. Children are, after all, a bit burdensome even today. And we can't go around killing children simply because they are burdensome. There would be a whole lot of dead babies, if that were the case. I know I wouldn't be here.

Often the mothers were the first to propose abandonment. Their entire cultrue was centered around survival (as all cultures in borderline habitable regions tend to be), and they knew fairly well how much of a population they could support. If a birth meant they went over that population limit, it would be abandoned. They also tended to abandon female babies because of the high male mortality rate. Durran might remember the article better than I do, but I believe it was said that if the practice were not carried out, each male would have had to support an average of four females, which was impossible given the culture and the environment. Desires may weigh into the equation, but at a far lower factor of importance than survival. If it's a choice in a tribe of 50 between remaining a tribe of 50 and surviving or becoming a tribe of 51 and risking the starvation of the majority of the tribe during the winter, any logical figuring of the consequences should suggest that despite the surface appearance of immorality, it is in fact more appropriate to enhance the odds of survival of the 50, even at the cost of the one. As I said before, it's not necessary now because we do have such a surplus of basic survival goods, but they were living in an area where supplies are scarce. While I haven't been there, three of my friends at college are Alaskan, and from their descriptions and pictures I've seen, I'm impressed that any pre-industrial civilization could live there. It's completely understandable that sacrifices would have to be made in order to survive.

[Queeb Salaron]

Durran: Yeah, sorry about that... troubles with the quoting fct. again....

You do realize that by 'burdensome' what he actually means is 'either the baby dies, or the tribe dies', right?

Yes, of course. But if the baby dies, then the tribe (which must be small in order for one additional mouth to be a sufficient detrement,) loses a member of its next generation and is more likely to die off anyway. The point is this: The child may be burdensome for a period of time, but provided the tribe survives its upbringing, the child will become a productive member of that tribe and help it out of peril. It's a necessary risk.

That's the logistical standpoint. The mother might just not want to give the child up. That's her right.

[Andrew J.]

This is also a child that no one else would dare raise. Who could possibly raise the unwanted child of a young girl raped by a religious fanatic? Imagine the mental disorder that this child would be raised to upon discovering his personal history.

Why tell him? Plenty of orphans never get told the circumstances of their births, and in this case it were best that the child be raised anonymously, with no chance of inadvertantly (sp?) hearing anything traumatizing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Nothing short of murder

Jesus Christ........

[RedImperator]

I have a hypothetical situation here....

Assume for a minute that young Ms. Smart was raped. It has been nine months since her abduction. Say this weirdo Mitchell raped her in their third month on the road (which, if the FBI's info is correct, puts them in San Diego. But that's irrelevant.)

Now she's been found, and she's pregnant, raped by her abductor and forced to carry the child against her will. This is a child she doesn't want, a child that if she kept would only remind her of the mental and physical torment that she had endured over the past 9 months. And now she is 6 months pregnant, the start of her third trimester.

This is also a child that no one else would dare raise. Who could possibly raise the unwanted child of a young girl raped by a religious fanatic? Imagine the mental disorder that this child would be raised to upon discovering his personal history. It is a tragedy in every sense of the word, a travesty to humanity embodied in flesh and bone.

Now what do we think about partial-birth abortion?

Let's slightly alter your hypothetical situation. All other terms remain the same, but this time, suppose the baby is born. From a neurological standpoint, there isn't much difference between a six month old fetus and a newborn infant--they're closer to each other than an infant is to a toddler, anyway. Is it morally right to drown the baby? By the beginning of the third trimester, an abortion, even in the case of rape, is murder. It's a terrible situation either way, but exacerbating the situation with a murder isn't an acceptable solution.

[Queeb Salaron]

Let's slightly alter your hypothetical situation. All other terms remain the same, but this time, suppose the baby is born. From a neurological standpoint, there isn't much difference between a six month old fetus and a newborn infant--they're closer to each other than an infant is to a toddler, anyway. Is it morally right to drown the baby? By the beginning of the third trimester, an abortion, even in the case of rape, is murder. It's a terrible situation either way, but exacerbating the situation with a murder isn't an acceptable solution.

The theory of "two wrongs don't make a right" is flawed in this argument, because we must recognize that a child is still a part of the mother. They are connected, share similar blood types, nutrition values, etc. Any damage that the mother does to herself (ie drinking, smoking, etc) she does to her child. They are connected. Duh.

And because of this, no longer wanting that part of her body is no more morally wrong than wanting to clip her toenails. The desire to lose the baby is normal in the conditions of rape. And to not have any kind of sympathy for a rape victim (or ANY person with a curable defect,) is morally wrong. Why should we subject anyone to the pains of childbearing and childbirth of a baby that was not created with her consent?

Am I advocating for the frequent use of partial-birth abortion? Of course not. I am personally against abortion. But I am pro-choice. Women should have the option to get a partial-birth abortion, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that action. Because regardless of what trimester the mother is in, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached, the child is still a part of another human being who absolutely should dictate what happens to it. To deny this principle is to advocate against body-piercing and tattoos, the clipping of finger/toenails, even haircuts.

[Durandal]

The theory of "two wrongs don't make a right" is flawed in this argument, because we must recognize that a child is still a part of the mother. They are connected, share similar blood types, nutrition values, etc. Any damage that the mother does to herself (ie drinking, smoking, etc) she does to her child. They are connected. Duh.

And because of this, no longer wanting that part of her body is no more morally wrong than wanting to clip her toenails.

False analogy and a compositional fallacy. The fact that both toenails and a fetus are both connected to the mother does not mean that they are the same any other respect you choose! Jesus Christ, I actually have to explain the difference between a sentient fetus and fucking toe nails to you?

The desire to lose the baby is normal in the conditions of rape. And to not have any kind of sympathy for a rape victim (or ANY person with a curable defect,) is morally wrong. Why should we subject anyone to the pains of childbearing and childbirth of a baby that was not created with her consent?

A connection does not imply that they are the same thing. The fetus is legally considered a sentient human life, and it therefore has the right to life, just like everyone else does. I feel badly for the rape victim, but past the second trimester, the fetus is considered sentient, and the rights of a sentient life trump sympathizing with a rape victim.

Am I advocating for the frequent use of partial-birth abortion? Of course not. I am personally against abortion. But I am pro-choice. Women should have the option to get a partial-birth abortion, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that action. Because regardless of what trimester the mother is in, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached, the child is still a part of another human being who absolutely should dictate what happens to it. To deny this principle is to advocate against body-piercing and tattoos, the clipping of finger/toenails, even haircuts.

You're full of shit. Since when is a fetus with higher-order brain activity and a functioning nervous system comparable to a fucking toe-nail or hair clipping? Do you have any idea how massively flawed your analogy is?

[Colonel Olrik]

The theory of "two wrongs don't make a right" is flawed in this argument, because we must recognize that a child is still a part of the mother. They are connected, share similar blood types, nutrition values, etc. Any damage that the mother does to herself (ie drinking, smoking, etc) she does to her child. They are connected. Duh.

The baby cannot feed itself and take what's necessary from his mother. The same can be said about a newborn. There's no difference, at any level, between a recently born baby and a baby at his 8th/9th month. They think the same and feel the same. If you take the baby from the mother sooner than expected, he will develop naturally.

So, unless you're willing to make a case that is viable to kill a newborn baby, you have no argument.

And because of this, no longer wanting that part of her body is no more morally wrong than wanting to clip her toenails. The desire to lose the baby is normal in the conditions of rape. And to not have any kind of sympathy for a rape victim (or ANY person with a curable defect,) is morally wrong. Why should we subject anyone to the pains of childbearing and childbirth of a baby that was not created with her consent?

Because once the baby developes a conscience, he has the right to be considered human and an independent identity. There's plenty of time before that treshold when an abortion can be made. In the rare cases the baby reaches the third trimester, it's simply too late, and the eoman must deal with it.

Am I advocating for the frequent use of partial-birth abortion? Of course not. I am personally against abortion. But I am pro-choice.

People who consider themselves or others pro-choice/pro-life are guilty of the same black and white fallacy. This is a scientific matter, and the situation can only be analysed wtih the means of science and logic. A fertilized egg is not a human life. A third trimester baby is. The line between legal and illegal abortion must be put somewhere between.

The obvious solution, of course, is the flat brain activity line. Unfortunately, both the extremist sides of the debate fear the scientific reasoning.

Women should have the option to get a partial-birth abortion, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that action. Because regardless of what trimester the mother is in, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached, the child is still a part of another human being who absolutely should dictate what happens to it. To deny this principle is to advocate against body-piercing and tattoos, the clipping of finger/toenails, even haircuts.

Bullshit. The baby is born with the unbillical line intact. You're advocating infanticide.

edit: damn you, Durandal!

[RedImperator]

The theory of "two wrongs don't make a right" is flawed in this argument, because we must recognize that a child is still a part of the mother. They are connected, share similar blood types, nutrition values, etc. Any damage that the mother does to herself (ie drinking, smoking, etc) she does to her child. They are connected. Duh.

A newborn infant is as helpless as a fetus, and if it's being breast fed, it's still dependent on the mother's body for nutrition, and she can pass diseases and blood toxins through breast milk. A third-trimester fetus has a unique genetic code, functional organs (save for the lungs, which are dormant for obvious reasons), its own circulatory system, and most importantly, a functioning brain and nervous system. It is a living, individual human being, with less physical connection to its mother than a pair of conjoined twins. If you're going to argue that physical dependency automatically disqualifies someone from being alive, then anyone in an iron lung isn't human.

And because of this, no longer wanting that part of her body is no more morally wrong than wanting to clip her toenails. The desire to lose the baby is normal in the conditions of rape. And to not have any kind of sympathy for a rape victim (or ANY person with a curable defect,) is morally wrong. Why should we subject anyone to the pains of childbearing and childbirth of a baby that was not created with her consent?

When did I say I had no sympathy for the rape victim, shithead? Durandal, Orick, and myself have all just demonstrated that a third trimester fetus is a human being with as much right to life as anyone else. Rape is horrible, but murder is worse, and the fact of the matter is, if a rape victim doesn't have the abortion by the end of the sixth month at latest, she has to carry the baby to term. The extremely rare situation you laid out in your scenario is unfortunate and horribly unfair to the victim, but if life was fair, teenaged girls wouldn't be kidnapped and held for nine months in the first place.

Am I advocating for the frequent use of partial-birth abortion? Of course not. I am personally against abortion. But I am pro-choice. Women should have the option to get a partial-birth abortion, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that action. Because regardless of what trimester the mother is in, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached, the child is still a part of another human being who absolutely should dictate what happens to it. To deny this principle is to advocate against body-piercing and tattoos, the clipping of finger/toenails, even haircuts.

As soon as you demonstrate the equivilancy between a sliver of dead keratin and a third trimester fetus, you'll have a valid point. Until then, you're advocating infantacide.