TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Abortion
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

Abortion

On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

Re: Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death.

so?

what astounds me is ignorant males like yourself telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence?

stupid stupid stupid comment.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.

utterly wrong. i'd like a source if you have one? abortion would be the most invasive and damaging form of "birth control" there is. with so many options these days, i guarantee you women are using it as a last resort.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country?

your country is BUILT upon the notion of self pleasure and freedom. are you so surprised by the results? "taking responsibility" - you mean like all the absent fathers?

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?

yes, let's FORCE women to have children they do not wish to have. that sounds like a wonderful alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Does the father of the child have a say in this?

no, and why should he? its her body.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

right. so your definition of "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" end at the liberty of a woman to control her own reproduction. hypocrite.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

yeah, well most of the rest of the world believes you are a paternalistic arsehole who should keep your hands to yourself and off women's bodies. I am so very fucking glad i live in a nation that is REALLY the land of the free and home of the brave, instead of a conservative religious state that is OBSESSED with enforcing their unprovable beliefs on everyone else around them.

luckily the right of a woman to control her reproduction over here doesn't rest with one decision like it does in the states. we'll always have the right in australia, and i hope the women are aborting them like its going out of fashion just to piss off indignant and arrogantly paternalistic people like yourself.

I think it isn't morally correct, but I'm still very against legislation to prevent it. My morality shouldn't affect others, imo

U

Thanks for sharing your opinion, JOE. I will now respond to you sentence-by-sentence in an appropriately inane manner.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK Life begins at the point of conception.

No, life begins at the age of 18.

quote:

No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue.

That was neither grammatically legal nor logically cogent, but I'll humor you.

quote:

What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death.

You expected that they would have gone through a radically different "development stage"? How is this astounding?

quote:

Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence?

No, but it clearly should have been made about your existence, so I guess there's no one-size-fits-all solution here, is there?

quote:

Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.

Interesting. Why don't you get an abortion, JOE, and then tell me how convenient it is?

quote:

They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created.

What sane person wouldn't?

quote:

What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country?

Getting an abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions.

quote:

Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?

Yes.

quote:

Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter!

Dying unborn is nothing compared to living stupid.

quote:

Does the father of the child have a say in this?

Unfortunately not; I agree that it is a problem that children are allowed to be born when both parents do not approve.

quote:

And what about the constitution of the United States?

No, we shouldn't abort it.

quote:

Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Yes, beginning at 18.

quote:

I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.

So basically what you are saying is that it is your opinion that everyone should be forced to abide by your opinion. Charming.

Well, in that case, I'll take the same stance: no one should be allowed to have children without my permission, because I believe unauthorized reproduction is a crime against humanity.

quote:

We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country.

We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and prevent women from giving birth without proper authorization and maximize the value of life by decreasing its supply.

quote:

For [sic] a country that murders it's [sic] children cannot be far from self destruction.

A country in which the population pullulates wantonly cannot be far from self destruction.

Shouldn't a human fetus be given the right to life? Why do they charge murderers of pregnant women with two counts of murder for mother and child (like the Scott Peterson case)?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Shouldn't a human fetus be given the right to life? Why do they charge murderers of pregnant women with two counts of murder for mother and child (like the Scott Peterson case)?

that will depend on the statute. in new york for instance i believe you cant be charged for murdering an unborn child, but i could be wrong.

no, they should not be given a "right to life". they are cells in a female body, they aren't people.

god, i wouldve thought you'd be the last person to want the government sticking their nose in places they shouldn't be.

People really think that abortion is the "birth control of convenience"?

Look, there are more abortions than there should be in the United States, that much is true. And we should work on reducing the prevalence of abortion - by reducing poverty, improving education (yes, including sex ed), and improving foster care programs. Your solution of ending abortions would only ensure that more children in this country live without health insurance, without a loving family, and with no chance at a decent education.

You ask if a person living today would choose abortion. Well, if my mother was raped, or I had been pre-natally diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or my mother could barely make rent on welfare payments... then yeah, I'd give it some thought.

It's easy to say that you would never choose abortion from the comfort of our privileged lives, but Roe v. Wade wasn't decided the way it was to make abortion a widespread method of birth control. It was decided the way it was in part because a woman has a right to choose over matters of her own body (by your logic, should a woman be prosecuted for eating poorly while pregnant? for drinking alcohol, even once?), and also because there exist cases in which abortion is unfortunately the best option.

I could say more, but it's getting late.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, they should not be given a "right to life". they are cells in a female body, they aren't people. god, i wouldve thought you'd be the last person to want the government sticking their nose in places they shouldn't be.

You could take the position that the fetus is simply an extension of the female body, as opposed to an independent person deserving of constitutional rights.

It's not about government sticking its nose in people's privacy. But if the fetus is classified as a living human, then we can't avoid the problem of equal rights for all. Basically, the conflict boils down to this. What do we classify human fetuses as? Persons or extensions of the female body? From there, we know our solutions, but I doubt we'll get past the first part...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You could take the position that the fetus is simply an extension of the female body, as opposed to an independent person deserving of constitutional rights. It's not about government sticking its nose in people's privacy. But if the fetus is classified as a living human, then we can't avoid the problem of equal rights for all. Basically, the conflict boils down to this. What do we classify human fetuses as? Persons or extensions of the female body? From there, we know our solutions, but I doubt we'll get past the first part...

Fetuses are not people - unless Ron Paul gets his way and passes his amendment to the Constitution... which is sacrosanct. Except that it doesn't include the anti-abortion thing. Yet. The Founding Fathers would have wanted it that way, after all. No gay people either. Even though Franklin may have been a bit fruity.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What do we classify human fetuses as? Persons or extensions of the female body? From there, we know our solutions, but I doubt we'll get past the first part...

these decisions have already been made, hence the limits on when an abortion can be carried out.

Re: Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

Overturning Roe v. Wade only means it's up to the states to decide whether to legalize abortion. There are a bunch of states that would automatically legalize abortion in their respective states should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You ask if a person living today would choose abortion. Well, if my mother was raped, or I had been pre-natally diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or my mother could barely make rent on welfare payments... then yeah, I'd give it some thought. It's easy to say that you would never choose abortion from the comfort of our privileged lives, but Roe v. Wade wasn't decided the way it was to make abortion a widespread method of birth control. It was decided the way it was in part because a woman has a right to choose over matters of her own body (by your logic, should a woman be prosecuted for eating poorly while pregnant? for drinking alcohol, even once?), and also because there exist cases in which abortion is unfortunately the best option. I could say more, but it's getting late.

totally agree with Mr. Lebezniatnikov.
Just put yourself into a 13 year old girl's place, who was raped and now is pregnant with a child, that would destroy all her life, or how would a woman feel about this living remind of a cruel act over her.

so the only answer is - there supposed to be a choice. her own choice.
but to think, that only a woman is responsable for a birth is wrong too, the father at least got to know about this

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au My morality shouldn't affect others, imo

And that's exactly why I'm against abortion: The foetus must be treated as any other citizen, being granted the same rights. You can't "abort" your child after it's left the womb, so there's no reason why either the father or the mother should have a say concerning abortion just because it is in there.

This opinion might sound a bit extreme at first so, considering the fact that humans are bio-cultural creatures, I believe I will have to divide my argument into two different parts: the biological basis for my position against abortion, and its socio-cultural consequences. I'm going to brief here, by the way, so I hope I'm not leaving anything out.

1. Biological arguments against abortion

A common misconception about abortion is the exaggeration concerning the right for women to do whatever they want to their body. Sure, that is true, but a foetus is not part of a woman's body in the same sense her liver is. If anything, the foetus is inside her body as if it were a parasite. The difference in this analogy, however, is the fact that babies do not kill their mothers the way a parasite does; and, in less than a year, a foetus is supposed to leave anyway.

As Daniel Dennett says in "Kinds of Minds" [link to Amazon], when you deal about the existence (or not) of a consciouss mind, it's better to err by being on the safe side. At 12 weeks, for example, the foetus can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the
base of the thumb (Valman, H. and Pearson, 1980). At that point, we already have a clear sign that the foetus may be a conscious (and living) being. So, once the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop during the 3^rd week (NIH Medical Encyclopedia), it's really a point of no return, as it leaves almost no room for doubt that it is a living individual by then.

2. Social Consequences

That position leaves us with 3 different problems: rape, teenage pregnancy and cases in which the pregnancy may lead to the mother's death. Out of the 3, perhaps the third option is the only in which abortion can be justified, being a really atypical kind of involuntary manslaughter (although the child has no way of avoiding that).

Regarding the other two, the State should be responsible for the child, as it would be for any other citizen, unless the parents claimed the right to keep him/her. On the first case, the state failed to protect the woman; on the second, the teenager might not have the capacity of raising the child on her own, and she can't be held responsible for her acts legally, as far as I'm concerned.

eh...what the hell, I'll throw my two cents in...

When a choice is freely made, the consequences of that choice must be accepted. When a couple decides to have sex, protected or not, there is always the chance of conception. If conception occurs a genetically unique "individual" is formed, and regardless of whether or not you consider it a human, which genetically it is, an abortion does kill a living "thing."

Then being said, I believe that when a consenting mother (or couple) uses abortion as a means of birth control, which is what the overwhelming amount of abortions are used as, it is wrong. Just as I believe wiping out forests, killing animals or the needless destruction of life is wrong, so is an abortion. Further, I have no problem putting humans at the top of the biological hierarchy and even if you do not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionable has the capacity to be and therefore its death is even more wrong.

Now, in the small amount of cases where a pregnancy is the result of rape, my previous conditions don't apply. I would try to find a way for the woman to proceed through pregnancy if possible, but ultimately her choice to terminate the pregnancy is there. This also holds true when the woman's life is in danger (also very rare) for utilitarian and practical reasons and also in the case of horrific and catastrophic birth defects detected in utero.

There are more qualifiers that could be brought in but I think the underlying rationale is; if you make a choice, you also agree to live with the consequences, especially if that consequence is the production of a new and unique living being.

wow, well you 2 certainly know how to disappoint your overseas fans.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And that's exactly why I'm against abortion: The foetus must be treated as any other citizen, being granted the same rights.

Why, exactly? Children aren't given precisely the same rights as adults, so why should a fetus be given precisely the same rights a child or any other citizen? For that matter, how can we even consider a fetus a citizen when it is highly doubtful it can meet any meaningful criteria for personhood?

quote:

A common misconception about abortion is the exaggeration concerning the right for women to do whatever they want to their body. Sure, that is true, but a foetus is not part of a woman's body in the same sense her liver is. If anything, the foetus is inside her body as if it were a parasite. The difference in this analogy, however, is the fact that babies do not kill their mothers the way a parasite does; and, in less than a year, a foetus is supposed to leave anyway.

Most parasites do not kill their hosts, but merely have deleterious effects upon the host (as a fetus does). And it is also not uncommon for parasitism to be a temporary relationship for example in the case of leeches (which compared with fetuses demand very little and are quite punctual). I don't know where you're going with this, but it looks like the wrong direction if you are looking to justify keeping the thing around...

quote:

As Daniel Dennett says in "Kinds of Minds" [link to Amazon], when you deal about the existence (or not) of a consciouss mind, it's better to err by being on the safe side. At 12 weeks, for example, the foetus can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of the thumb (Valman, H. and Pearson, 1980). At that point, we already have a clear sign that the foetus may be a conscious (and living) being. So, once the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop during the 3rd week (NIH Medical Encyclopedia), it's really a point of no return, as it leaves almost no room for doubt that it is a living individual by then.

It is not a valid inference that reflexive response to external stimuli suggests a conscious being. In fact, it seems so intuitively obvious that such a reaction does not imply consciousness that I can't help but find a bit of disingenuousness in its being proffered as evidence. The overwhelming evidence in developmental neurology suggests that what we usually refer to as "consciousness" is not possible until there is actual cortical function, which does not occur until approximately the 29th week of gestation (ref).

More conservative estimates on when the fetus might be capable of performing at least some functions that could be regarded as "conscious" place it between 20 and 25 weeks gestation. It is much more reasonable to believe based on the available evidence that it is not until after 29 weeks, but even if there was some semblance of consciousness at that point in time, the vast majority of abortions take place before then (and I suspect that those performed afterwards tend to be those which are done in the case of a serious threat to the mother's survival, though I can't prove it):



In fact, nearly 90% of abortions take place at or before the 12th week gestation, before which synapses have not even begun to form in the cerebral cortex. What is being terminated is alive, but it is not capable of consciousness, nor has it ever been. It has no sense of self or person; indeed, it lacks the capacity for what we would call "thought" or "feeling." It is so fundamentally different from a living human being that to ascribe the same rights to it defies all reason while cheapening the meaning of genuine human life.

Re: Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

I've got one very good reason lately why such a conscience comparison is irrelevant in the modern USA
Over a million dead Iraqi's.
They have kids too, a great many of that number of deceased are kids and its become quite clear to the rest of the world that the US is really not someone you should go looking too for any kind of moral compass as it is hopelessly skewed influenced by the selfish opinions of its loud mouth, minority inhabitants.

For the better part of written history the boys have had the final say over the lives of women in terms of finance, laws, medical practice and cultural influence and its only still since the 1960's and 70's started to get to the point where they don't have the complete say, in some countries.
And now, you don't.
As tough as that is for you to accept, its time to stop being the testosterone bully and go do something you're undoubtedly much better equipped and qualified for: clubbing other boys over the head, picking up heavy things and taking out the garbage.
Heck if you really need to justify your intellectual and creative existence on the planet, go write an essay on why the world sucks from a masculine perspective.
Because I'm not qualified to do that.
Just like you're not really qualified from any point other than an archaic, skewed and cultural concept of selfishness to write on women's health and I highly doubt you're a gynaecologist.

What I can write about is the perspective of why unwanted pregnancy sucks for the majority of women around the world.

With the exception of only a few developed countries, its still a hazardous and unhealthy part of life that kills either the mother or child and sometimes both. Even in a country with decent medical care, there's still a risk, the figures are quite well published.

Occupationally, most employers in our developed countries treat childbearing as an 'option' of employment during and after pregnancy, rather than a fact of life. They will use any means necessary to get you off their payroll and not come back.
So, having worked your way up though the morass of male dominated careers out there, finally have enough in the bank, house and maybe a partner. You're having a kid.
Well lucky you, chances are, your career for the next 5 years is effectively over unless you want to palm the kid off to childcare, you will not have an independent income and financially with medical bills, insurance and another mouth to feed as small as it may be, its going to be a lot tougher.

This is not exactly a simple situation of social inconvenience to have a child people so casually make it out to paint pregnant women getting abortions as being selfish. It is a major disruptive event in your life you don't want to be blundering into without a fair amount of support from the partner, your family and friends.
Because you can unequivocally say in the majority of cases for people out there working part time and casual, your boss isn't going to want to see you back and they're certainly not going to give a damn if you don't like the fact.

People aren't using this procedure because they think its an easy option of having the medical equivalent of a drain cleaner shoved up them for amusement, inconvenience socially or because they simply hate all life.
It gets done when someone simply cannot have a child in their life.
Mentally, emotionally, financially, medically or morally in some cases, they simply cannot have a child.
It is not a means of birth control.
Often for the reasons above and the failure of birth control because no birth control is 100% assured, it gets used. Give people a 100% sure way of stopping pregnancy during intercourse and if they end up pregnant with this option not being used then they can be considered idiots, selfish and what not for getting an abortion.
But there isn't
So there needs to be a fall back measure.

Even on a social level having kids is fraught with problems.
It takes 2
Sometimes even under amicable situations at the time of the child's birth, marriages and relationships don't last and then, as is the case normally- the girls end up looking after the kid(s)
And you really are up that creek without a paddle.
Chances of new partner (outside of romantic dreams and notions as seen in hollywood productions) when you have kids- pretty awful
Chances of raising children on a full income and still being able to spend time with them- pretty awful
Chances of getting back your former career after the kids have been raised- very, very awful
Chances of former partner actually helping- 50:50
Chances of kids emotionally disturbed by this and economic hardship- assured

Oh it's quite easy to simply say, we'll have more tax-charity for this, but I mean for a lot of you, you're still at school, lower to middle income and while I make no judgement on that, its your life! You really aren't in the position to be forking out wads of cash.
Last year, my taxes would have paid for in my country, for 38 single parents allowances and I will be quite blunt and succinct about this.
I DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES MISTAKES FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME
We are talking bucks here?
Yes we are, how many would the taxes of of your income paid for last year on average with the single parents bonus-dole allowance is around $17,000?
1? maybe 2?
Personally I would much rather have paid for 38 x $800 surgeries with the full blown surgeon, clean conditions and the remaining change from my taxes can go into things which benefit everyone.
New wing on your university or school
Fixing holes in the road
Additional wards on a hospital
And many other sundry things which taxes get used for that aren't going just into child support on such a massive level.

I am not being selfish here dodging out of my socially and legally enforced moral obligation to pay taxes, I'd just like to see them spent on something else, rather than something which is entirely preventable in most modern countries. Selfishness from the fathers perspective however, even with socially and legally enforced moral obligation to pay money for their kid, is still one of those 'grey' areas that a lot of men choose to dodge around.
For the majority of mothers, its just not an option to abandon a child for maternal reasons. Most men however, don't seem to have this little bit of moral compass and the walk-out rate is fairly horrific as they run off to unsullied, financially free pastures full of eligible partners which aren't going to cost them a mint.

It is in conclusion why I think we don't really want the men's moral compass turning into the legal enforcement of women's procedure of child rearing or choice of abortion.
You simply aren't qualified to make it most of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira That position leaves us with 3 different problems: rape, teenage pregnancy and cases in which the pregnancy may lead to the mother's death. [b]Out of the 3, perhaps the third option is the only in which abortion can be justified[/{, being a really atypical kind of involuntary manslaughter (although the child has no way of avoiding that). Regarding the other two, the State should be responsible for the child, as it would be for any other citizen, unless the parents claimed the right to keep him/her. On the first case, the state failed to protect the woman; on the second, the teenager might not have the capacity of raising the child on her own, and she can't be held responsible for her acts legally, as far as I'm concerned.

I may be understanding you wrong, my mind is not as sharp as i would like it to be at the moment due to the fact that i haven't slept for around 38 hours, but it looks to me that you are off the opinion that even if a woman gets raped, and gets pregnant because of thet, that abortion isn't justified?

I will ghave to return to thias later, i neeed to get some sleep. I am so tired i can barely form a sentence in my head, much less an valid argument.




Against abortion, for killing babies!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Why, exactly? Children aren't given precisely the same rights as adults, so why should a fetus be given precisely the same rights a child or any other citizen? For that matter, how can we even consider a fetus a citizen when it is highly doubtful it can meet any meaningful criteria for personhood?

Even if children aren't given precisely the same rights, there are quite a few rights common to both groups (citizens and their children), such as the inalienable right to life (I'm quite sure there's something about this in American Law, you probably know about it a lot more than I ever will).

Also, how can a foetus not meet any meaningful criteria for personhood if it shares, structurally, cells (and later on, organs) that resemble those of a person — would this criteria be invalid if a foetus were a fully-fledged tiny person?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Most parasites do not kill their hosts, but merely have deleterious effects upon the host (as a fetus does). And it is also not uncommon for parasitism to be a temporary relationship for example in the case of leeches (which compared with fetuses demand very little and are quite punctual). I don't know where you're going with this, but it looks like the wrong direction if you are looking to justify keeping the thing around...

I'm defending the fact that it is not part of a woman's body, pretty much the same way a parasit isn't part of me.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It is not a valid inference that reflexive response to external stimuli suggests a conscious being.

It suggests life of some sort, and that's why I mentioned it. As a matter of fact, I still find these points valid:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The overwhelming evidence in developmental neurology suggests that what we usually refer to as "consciousness" is not possible until there is actual cortical function, which does not occur until approximately the 29th week of gestation (ref). More conservative estimates on when the fetus might be capable of performing at least some functions that could be regarded as "conscious" place it between 20 and 25 weeks gestation. It is much more reasonable to believe based on the available evidence that it is not until after 29 weeks, but even if there was some semblance of consciousness at that point in time, the vast majority of abortions take place before then (and I suspect that those performed afterwards tend to be those which are done in the case of a serious threat to the mother's survival, though I can't prove it): In fact, nearly 90% of abortions take place at or before the 12th week gestation, before which synapses have not even begun to form in the cerebral cortex. What is being terminated is alive, but it is not capable of consciousness, nor has it ever been. It has no sense of self or person; indeed, it lacks the capacity for what we would call "thought" or "feeling." It is so fundamentally different from a living human being that to ascribe the same rights to it defies all reason while cheapening the meaning of genuine human life.

So, in case I worded my words poorly, I shall rephrase here what I attempted to say: I do not dismiss what these doctors are saying, but the definitions behind "a sense of self" and "what we usually refer to as 'consciousness'" worry me a bit. The point here, and behind all my arguments, is that, although I don't doubt what you're saying, I can't avoid being too cautious because life is involved. Can you ever be completely certain that there isn't anything mind-like in a creature that is supposed to become conscious at some point?

I think abortion should be legal up to the point where the child can potentially survive on it's own...(the 7 month mark or so). At that point, the baby is almost completely developed and there is a CHANCE it could live without it's mother...meaning it should be considered an independent human being. I was personally born at 7 1/2 months (6 weeks early), and there have been instances of babies surviving at a 9 week premature birth. I think banning partial birth abortion is a sensible idea...but during the first two trimesters when the baby has absolutely no chance of survival without the mother, it should be her decision.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose I may be understanding you wrong, my mind is not as sharp as i would like it to be at the moment due to the fact that i haven't slept for around 38 hours, but it looks to me that you are off the opinion that even if a woman gets raped, and gets pregnant because of thet, that abortion isn't justified?

I know it's controversial but, yeah, that's exactly what I said.

edit: Before I come accross as a heartless bastard, I'm focusing my opinion on the baby, rather than on the mother.

I actually agree with Cap here - late term abortions should only be in case of dire emergency... but in the first trimester, as Arbiter pointed out, there is no sentient being that has the capacity to make the "choice" the original poster said it has the right to make.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I think abortion should be legal up to the point where the child can potentially survive on it's own...(the 7 month mark or so). At that point, the baby is almost completely developed and there is a CHANCE it could live without it's mother...meaning it should be considered an independent human being. I was personally born at 7 1/2 months (6 weeks early), and there have been instances of babies surviving at a 9 week premature birth. I think banning partial birth abortion is a sensible idea...but during the first two trimesters when the baby has absolutely no chance of survival without the mother, it should be her decision.

Well, you could look at that two ways;

1) What happens when science and technology reaches the point where we could virtually raise a child from fertilization to "birth" completely external to the female? Then do all unborn, regardless of their stage of development, now gain the right to not be aborted? We're basically setting up a sliding definition of when abortion should or should not be legal based on current technology.

2) It could also be said that children, even after birth, are still dependent on their mother for survival for an extended period of time. Since they are still dependent on their mother (or some form of external care) do we still have the right to kill those children? Do we have the right to kill those who are not able to take care of themselves?

I hear quite a bit of the location and dependence arguments when it comes to abortion. I think both are flawed and are not good determinates of whether abortion should or should not be illegal. The "location argument," basically stating that abortion should be illegal because a) the developing zygote/embryo/fetus is inside of the woman and should be her right to have it removed and b) outside of the mother the zygote/embryo/fetus would die is flawed because; a) technology is the only limiting factor in this instance and no one thinks killing a premature infant on life support is ethical and b) newborns, without direct care would be just as dead as a zygote/embryo/fetus. (The "dependence" argument is basically part "b" of the location argument I talked about before.)

I tend to look for the most universal and non-technology or current state of affairs rationale for my stances. That is why I keep coming back to the free choice vs. consequence argument. Science will reach a point where the female is no longer perfunctory when it comes to gestation. Therefore, I cannot base my belief on when an abortion should or should not be illegal on when the child becomes viable outside of the body. Therefore, I go to the point where a genetically unique being comes into existence. Once that happens, I begin to have issues with abortion when it is used simply as a means of avoiding the consequences of a willful action.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I think abortion should be legal up to the point where the child can potentially survive on it's own...(the 7 month mark or so). At that point, the baby is almost completely developed and there is a CHANCE it could live without it's mother...meaning it should be considered an independent human being. I was personally born at 7 1/2 months (6 weeks early), and there have been instances of babies surviving at a 9 week premature birth. I think banning partial birth abortion is a sensible idea...but during the first two trimesters when the baby has absolutely no chance of survival without the mother, it should be her decision.

I was born at 6 months (17 Sep 1985 as opposed to 13 Dec) and certainly survived, even though I needed major surgery on my left eye to make sure I wasn't totally blind (I am blind out of my right eye due to the pre-mature birth). Shouldn't the line be drawn even further prior to this?

Re: Re: Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith

Everyone should probably read this until it sinks in.

Though I do fear that the money saved from preventing other peoples' mistakes would just be summarily 'donated' to the effort to kill more Iraqis. :/

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.