Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on June 28, 2001, 07:59:00 AM
-
Controversial and sensitive subject matter, that can elevate our internal emotional feelings, so, lets keep the discussion focusing on the subject, and not personal attacks on ones opinions posted here. My question to you is...at what point is it a fetus, and at what point is it a child? Read on:
This is pretty amazing. Read the story first, then bring up the picture.
THE HAND:
A picture began circulating in November. In many people's opinions, it should be proclaimed as "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "The Picture of the Decade." It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the paper you probably will never see it.
The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby name Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spin a bifida and would not survive if removed from the mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb. In the procedure, a C-section removes the uterus and the doctor makes a small incision to operate on the baby. During the surgery on little Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed, hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, "Hand of Hope." The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift life...." You can see the actual picture, its incredible.
Hand of Hope (http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1722739&a=13244800&p=51045700&Sequence=0&res=high)
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
Modern medicine is truly amazing.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
My question to you is...at what point is it a fetus, and at what point is it a child
I think you have hit the nail on the head with that question Rip. It shouldn't matter WHEN someone thinks a "fetus" becomes a "child", the question is, at what point has a "LIFE" been created.
That point is called conception, the rest is called "growth" and the termination of this innocent life, for no other reason than it's an inconvience to one's lifestyle, is called "MURDER", er the "right to choose" for those on the left....
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
My question to you is...at what point is it a fetus, and at what point is it a child?
I see no difference between fetus and child except perhaps that the child is out of the "belly" (dunno the right term) of his mother.
the question is, at what point has a "LIFE" been created
When there is 2 "blastomères"
In french (sorry for medical term I use my native language ;))
A partir du moment ou la membrane pellucide de l'ovocyte devient infranchissable pour d'autres spermatozoïdes.
Translated by a robot :
From the moment or the pellucid membrane of the ovocyte becomes insuperable for others spermatozoïdes.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
-
Okay, okay, I give. The stink of hypocrisy is rising so high I'm starting to gag!
LOL, let's protect LIFE when it comes to a fetus. But in the meantime lets KILL everything else, let's use tax payers money to fund the spraying of Monsanto's Roundup on the crops of Colombian peasants, let's pour billions of dollars into military programs when there's no one left to fight, lets bring back nuclear power as if the lessons of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island weren't enough warning.
The right wing motto: Let's claim to protect LIFE when in fact everything we do concerns DEATH.
I've often pondered over the obvious hypocrisy of the right wing stance. Yes, the left wingers are guilty too.
This will sound farfetched but I have a theory. In the case of abortion we have a tiny itty-bitty little creature completely helpless before the harsh abortionist. Isn't this analogous to the helpless weak Christian standing before his stern all-powerful Lord Our God?
My theory on why the right wingers get their panties all in a twist over abortion is that it's a psychological projection of their deepest beliefs of helplessness. Except in this case they have a chance of doing something about it even if it may require trashing the rights of others.
So let's shoot an abortionist in order to save a fetus so that when the fetus reaches eighteen years of age we can pat it on the back and send it off to war in good conscious. ;)
-
Blur:"Except in this case they have a chance of doing something about it even if it may require trashing the rights of others.
And, I ask you, what of the rights of a fetus, again, the question, at what point is it a child or a fetus, and , to add, at what point does this fetus/child gain "rights" as you put it?
-
Hey! There goes "drive-by Blur!" He's snapped off a few sentences at your front porch and put the pedal to the metal!
Don't bother engaging his more obvious inanities. He won't be back this way for a while. :D
-
Aren't they trying to save that fetus' life?
What does this have to do with abortions?
-SW
-
"So let's shoot an abortionist in order to save a fetus so that when the fetus gets eighteen years of age we can pat it on the back and send it off to war in good conscious....."
The FBI monitors this forum for vigilantes. I'd be careful.
-
Actually, they want to save the life of convicted POS murderers on death row, but kill as many unwanted babies as they want.
And the next time I rape and kill the fetus of an expected mother, I hope I get community service for assault. Or would that be aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Aren't they trying to save that fetus' life?
What does this have to do with abortions?
-SW
It has to do with the timetable concerning when a "fetus" becomes a "child" as once it becomes a "child", the rights of the child will interfere with the "right to choose" by the mother. As long as they can call it an "it" instead of a "he" or "she" they can kill the "baby" legally without taking the "child's" rights into consideration.
Too bad the left is for abortions, if they were against them I think they have the lawyers on staff now who could double speak around exisiting laws.
Eagler
-
I think that a fair point to consider a fetus as human would be when its brain waves become coherent. I'd have to look this up at home, but I seem to recall that it occurs at the end of the first trimester.
-
Well hey - I don't mind a good head to head. Let me suggest that the question of when a fetus becomes a child has nothing to do with biology at all. Its entirely a social decision. If the society has determined that it is not a person until some specific point in its development, then it isn't, and aborting it before then is not murder. Morals and ethics are not some absolute standard - they are always what a given society has determined they are, and they change over time.
In this case, the very real question of who owns a citizen's body is also a consideration. Any attempt to restrict a woman's access to an abortion is quite literally to assert that the state has some right of ownership over her body. (Of course, the state DOES consider that it has rights of ownership over the bodies of its citizens, since it restricts what can be put into them - but in neither case is it often argued from that point of view).
Actually, this debate is, by definition, not resolvable, since both sides have valid arguments (though each side naturally considers its stance valid and the other's not). Which is why it MUST be a decision that the society makes. For better or worse, the US, along with most of the western world, has made a choice. Some peope don't like the choice that was made, but, as with so many things, that's just tough. Personally I find it repugnant that Plastic Surgeons are far more valued than Secondary School teachers - but that's how this society sees things.
- Yoj
-
In that case, I have NO idea when a fetus could be considered a human life.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
And, I ask you, what of the rights of a fetus, again, the question, at what point is it a child or a fetus, and , to add, at what point does this fetus/child gain "rights" as you put it?
Rip, your asking a black and white type question where there will never be a clear-cut answer. Some fundamentalist types claim it's a human being at conception while spiritual types claim that its not a human child until the soul enters.
If my wife became pregnant I would have to deal with this issue. Unless there were other circumstances involved I personally wouldn't opt for abortion. But if my neighbor became pregnant I feel it's absolutely none of my business.
I try not to concern myself with too many abstract problems. Life's much simpler this way.
Toad I'm throwing my "drive-by Blur Mobile" into reverse for a moment. When I make a statement I throw it out there for the world to see. Read it, ignore it, rant and rave about it, I really don't care. I'm not going to get worked up over defending it as I may change my mind after a while.
Isn't debate really just another form of violence? Aren't we really trying to make another succumb to our will? We can smash our pet beliefs over each others heads until the cows come home but do we really expect our opponent to stop and suddenly say, "I'm sorry, you're RIGHT!" :D
-
Straffo, why 2 Blastomeres? Why has the cell to divide first before you call it life? ;)
Besides a spermatocyte lives as well - just as any other cell.
And what is the difference between a sperm/oocyte before and after they fusion? Their genome has been split before and united after...
And we spill millions of sperms day after day - well, some of us do... :)
Reminds me off Monty Pythons "Meaning of life" - Every sperm is sacred...
---
Really amazing story. Intrauterin surgery shows us the frontiers of modern medicine. Fascintating indeed - sometimes scary. As science moves on we should not forget ethics - not everything that is possible is "good" by definition.
Does an embryo have the same rights as a fetus?
And besides how does a human being loose these rights?
-
Originally posted by fscott:
The FBI monitors this forum for vigilantes. I'd be careful.
Why do you think the FBI monitors this forum?
Sounds like acute paranoia to me.
-
Very good questions Kirin, I am confused on this whole issue personally...I do wish the the abortion issue was out of the spot light of politics. With modern medicine technologies comes forms of social decisions such as abortions, cloning, etc.
This thread should be not of 'who is right, and who is wrong', but something more of 'We should really contemplate every decision we make'.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
I think that a fair point to consider a fetus as human would be when its brain waves become coherent.
LOL
that means we have many "un"-humans running around :)
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Kirin:
Straffo, why 2 Blastomeres? Why has the cell to divide first before you call it life? ;)
IMO until there is no division it has failed ... ;) and frankly a lonely spermatozoide or ovocyte won't create new life
by itself :) (1/2 genome etc ... ya know that :))
<edit> refreshed a bit my memory you are also right Kirin it start when the pronucléus male an female fusion (mix ?).
But isn't it nit picking ? :)
<edit 2> in italic
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
This thread should be not of 'who is right, and who is wrong', but something more of 'We should really contemplate every decision we make'.
This would be a much better world if we did just that. However, I think we'd need another species to take our place to get to that point. As it is we just go (in the words of Chris Berman) "stumblin' bumblin' rumblin'" into the future and we get what we get.
- Yoj
-
I find many parallells between this discussion and the discussion about the right to bear arms.
In both cases, those *defending* the right says it's a constitutional right.
In both cases, there's a load of semantics involved (armed militia vs armed citizen, fetus vs child).
About Roe vs Wade, I think one should consider the consideration made by the judges.
It is a constitutional matter, so let's see what someof their deliberations were
Justice Potter Stewart
"Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405. S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child..."Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "
There's precedent. Always nice to know.
Jusytice William Rehnquist:
"To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868,
there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.[] While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[] Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.
"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.
Now we're moving into the intention of the Founding Fathers - much like in the right to bear arms discussion.
My understanding of past practice is that a statute found to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not simply "struck down" but is, instead, declared
unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the Court. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S.356 (1886); Street v. New York, 394 U.S.576 (l969).
For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Well argued, I'd say...more to come in next post
-
Known fact that the flight simmer is a hostile, aggressive, anti-government persona. The FBI monitors all internet traffic with advanced sniffer progs. I believe this is a key forum that they actually take time to read. Many hostile people on board.
-
Chief Justice Warren Burger
"I do not read the Court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."
Clear cut too.
Justice William Douglas:
"The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of "the Blessings of Liberty" mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come within the meaning of the term "liberty" as
used in the Fourteenth Amendment.
"First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one's intellect, interests, tastes, and personality. . . .
"Second is freedom of choice in the basic decisions of one's life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and the
education and upbringing of children. . . .
"Third is the freedom to care for one's health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf. . . .
"[A] woman is free to make the basic decision whether to bear an unwanted child. Elaborate argument is hardly necessary to
demonstrate that childbirth may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired
future. . . .
Seems the judge argues here that it's a constitutional matter more than a biological one.
"The vicissitudes of life produce pregnancies which may be unwanted, or which may impair "health" in the broad Vuitch sense of the term, or which may imperil the life of the mother, or which, in the full setting of the case, may create such suffering, dislocations, misery, or tragedy as to make an early abortion the only civilized step to take. .
They even comment on "life begins at conception. This should be of interest to Eagler and people with similar opinions:
'To say that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential, rather than the actual. The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity -- the known, rather than the unknown.
When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The
phenomenon of life takes time to develop, and, until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to
formation would hardly be homicide, and as we have seen, society does not regard it as such. The rites of Baptism are not performed and death certificates are not required when a miscarriage occurs. No prosecutor has ever returned a murder
indictment charging the taking of the life of a fetus. This would not be the case if the fetus constituted human life.'
"The protection of the fetus when it has acquired life is a legitimate concern of the State. . . . When life is present is a question we do not try to resolve. While basically a question for medical experts, as stated by Mr. Justice Clark, it is, of course, caught up in matters of religion and morality.
"In short, I agree with the Court that endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health are standards too narrow for the right of privacy that is at stake."
Justice Byron White:
"With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the constitution extends to this Court.
Interesting!
In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. . . . ."
So, the judges disagree on what is human life.
It seems their discussion has been similar to the ones we've had here, exept they take a more constitutional approach to the matter.
-
For those who believe that "life begins at conception", and use birth control pills to prevent unwanted pregnancy, here's some interesting reading:
http://www.epm.org/bcp3300.html (http://www.epm.org/bcp3300.html)
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]
-
Originally posted by fscott:
Known fact that the flight simmer is a hostile, aggressive, anti-government persona. The FBI monitors all internet traffic with advanced sniffer progs. I believe this is a key forum that they actually take time to read. Many hostile people on board.
That is why I give an online persona of a radical conservative while in RL I'm a bleedy heart lib which would make blur look like a Rush Limbaugh :)
Eagler
-
I think there is a very important aspect of the Constitution that we should all remember.
The basic idea is to keep government OUT OF the lives of individuals, not to provide legality to INVADE the lives of individuals.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html)
Specific provisions of the Constitution protect the rights of the individual from interference by the federal and state governments. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights, were enacted in 1791 to provide a check on the new federal government.
See The Bill Of Rights: U.S. Const. amendments I - X. The first eight amendments provide protection of some of the most fundamental rights of the individual. For example, the First Amendment protects the fundamental civil rights of free speech, press and assembly, See, First Amendment Rights. Subsequent amendments have also broadened the protection afforded the rights of the individual. The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal. See U.S. Const. amend. XIII. The fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from abridging "the rights and immunities" of any citizen without due process of law. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affording citizens protection from interference by the state with almost all of the rights listed in the first eight amendments. The exceptions are the right to bear arms in the second Amendment, the 5th Amendment guarantee of a grand jury in criminal prosecutions, and the right to a jury for a civil trial under the seventh Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the equal protection of the laws. See Equal Protection. The right to vote is protected by the 15th Amendment ("right to vote shall not be denied. . . on account of race."), the 19th Amendment (guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of sex), and the 24th Amendment (extending the right to vote to those who are 18 years of age). See U.S. Const. Amendments XV, XIX, and XXIV.
-
Good discussion guys, Santa: thks, that's interesting reading, same for Toad.
-
Gee, it sure seems like there are an awful lot of "Gods" in this world.
At which point an egg and a sperm become a "viable human being" is irrelevant. The real question is whether or not there is ever a real need for an abortion.
I happen to think that abortion is a terrible thing, but I am smart enough to realize that there are times when it is necessary in order to save the life of the mother or for other equally valid reasons. In my opinion, it should never be thought of as a birth control option, but only as a surgical procedure that may be required for whatever good reason there is. And as long as even one woman needs to have an abortion, it should be legal.
But remember, abortion is now and always shall be a choice. There is nothing in this world that mandates that anyone should have an abortion against their will.
If you don't want one - don't have one. It's that simple.
But if my wife or daughter needs one to save her life, you'd better not get in her way. Period. Nothing gives you the right to sacrifice my daughter's life for your religious convictions.
-
Originally posted by buhdman:
In my opinion, it should never be thought of as a birth control option,..
Not to beat a dead horse but you do realize this is exactly the reason the majority of abortions are committed.
But if my wife or daughter needs one to save her life, you'd better not get in her way. Period. Nothing gives you the right to sacrifice my daughter's life for your religious convictions.
I'd never in a million years consider removing this option. Then it's a matter of life and death to the mother.
Problem is in today's society, abortion IS a method of birth control. If you don't believe that, you're fooling yourself.
Very valid & interesting point concerning birth control pills, a mini abortion (sometimes) without all the bells and whistles.
Just do what I did and get the big "V" ! :)
Last post on this thread, I think you all know where I stand on this one :)
Eagler
-
Buhd, what Eagler said. In most all sides of the political spectrum , most agree that in case of rape, or medical condition, that abortion is justified.
"Pro Choice" on the other hand, means for any reason, which, ironically has turned into a birth control option, that is the political debate we see today in the Pro and Anti lobby's...
-
Heres something to ponder:
It seems alright for a mother to kill her children *as long as* they are in her womb.
Im neither for nor against but I pity those poor souls that feel compelled to kill off their own unborn (rape and incest not withstanding but arent these unborn people innocents just as much as the victim? more to ponder)
Y
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
...this debate is, by definition, not resolvable, since both sides have valid arguments (though each side naturally considers its stance valid and the other's not). Which is why it MUST be a decision that the society makes.
That is where I disagree. The decision does not affect the society, so it must be left to the mother.
Of course some people see it as their religious obligation to arrange lifes of others even if they are not asked to, but you cannot really argue religion.
At least we can be gratefull that at those times they spend their efforts on an issue that hardly likely to affect us personally, rather then on some homicidal crusades, wholesale murder of "heretics", whitch hunts, etc.
miko
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
In that case, I have NO idea when a fetus could be considered a human life.
-SW
Why would you ever care to decide that? I assure you you will not have such problem when it is your fetus, so leave the decision to the parents and have one less thing to worry about.
miko
-
Originally posted by straffo:
and frankly a lonely spermatozoide or ovocyte won't create new life
by itself
Oh, yeah? How about an immaculate conception? Of course that was an egg, not a spermatozoid, but I am sure it would have sufficed.
miko
-
Which is exactly why I did not make an attempt to decide. It's not my business until it directly involves me.
-SW
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
That is where I disagree. The decision does not affect the society, so it must be left to the mother.
Of course some people see it as their religious obligation to arrange lifes of others even if they are not asked to, but you cannot really argue religion.
At least we can be gratefull that at those times they spend their efforts on an issue that hardly likely to affect us personally, rather then on some homicidal crusades, wholesale murder of "heretics", whitch hunts, etc.
miko
Oh I don't think we disagree that much. The ACT is the mother's decision. Whether or not the act is SANCTIONED is society's decision.
- Yoj
-
Does anyone know how big (in$$) the abortion industry is?
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
Oh I don't think we disagree that much. The ACT is the mother's decision. Whether or not the act is SANCTIONED is society's decision.
But should the society sanction any act that an individual could undertake with his own body if it does not affect anyone else in the society?
Not just abortion but drug use, seatbelt's use etc.
Of course parents can sanction their minor children and supposedly parents could be held responcible for their children safety (like putting seatbelts on them) since children are members of the society too.
miko
-
But then, isnt *any kind* of birth control (condoms, the pill, etc) murder?.
Daff
-
i dont understand why a teenager who has a baby and puts it in a dumpster goes to jail for years, but one who kills the baby three monsths earlier is in the clear.
abortion is wrong. hell, i was concieved outof wedlock, but born within :) What if my parents had decided it was easier just to get rid of me instead of raise me? Well I wouldnt be here ..
I havw a friend whos mom gave him up for adoption .. he never met her.. what if she had gotten an abortion?
I think 100% if the mothers life isnt threatened abortion should be illegal, especially if its a healthy baby.
You're gonna find it kinda ironic, but on the other hand im kinda against all the new extraordinary measures to prevent prenatal fatalities. Using artificial life support to sustain a 4 month premature baby who will never be normal and costs insurance and tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars doesnt make sense to me.
Think about how many lived could be saved by using the same amount of money on vaccinating children in impovrished countries..
I guess my attitude towards unborn human beings is "dont kill em but if they aren't supposed to be here let em go quietly"
is that hypocritical?
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
Oh, yeah? How about an immaculate conception? Of course that was an egg, not a spermatozoid, but I am sure it would have sufficed.
miko
ouch !
I won't enter in the debate :D
It would be too hard for my english ;)
-
Originally posted by Daff:
But then, isnt *any kind* of birth control (condoms, the pill, etc) murder?.
Daff
No.
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
But should the society sanction any act that an individual could undertake with his own body if it does not affect anyone else in the society?
Not just abortion but drug use, seatbelt's use etc.
miko
Should it? I don't know. What human society should or should not do is a question for ethicists to debate in some ivory tower. The fact is that society DOES determine sanctions. Abortions didn't begin with Rowe v. Wade - they just became legal (and much safer). I.e., society removed the sanctions. If it is ever overturned and abortion made illegal again, they won't stop - they will just go back to the backroom butchers. True, there would be somewhat fewer, but they would go on.
Essentially I agree with you - I think that if my behavior only affects me then its nobody's business but mine, and if I make bad decisions, I'll live with them. We both know the real world doesn't work like that.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
No.
Gee Rip - that's pretty absolute. I think there are people who seriously disagree.
-
I personally have few problems with abortion in the first few weeks and perhaps up through the first trimester. This is particularly the case with rape, incest and pregnant children. After that, my reservations grow.
In the first month or so I see no difference between an abortion and unplugging an accident victim with no brain activity from artifical life support. If you object to one you almost have to object to the other. If life starts at conception, even though it is unable to sustain itself outside the life-support system of the womb, then does it end when it is still functionally sustainable through external means in the hospital room? Is unplugging a brain dead motorcycle accident victim MURDER as well?
And if the abortion is in the first week, say by using the "day after pill," I see little difference compared to general birth control. We're not talking a fetus here. As Kirin posted, you get into the "every sperm is sacred" type of argument where we're all going to hell for spanking the monkey ;)
A casual late term abortion (which I still believe to be the exception rather than the rule in practice) is totally unacceptable to me unless the mother's life is in clear danger. The same goes, though to a lesser extent, for abortions in the second trimester.
Charon
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
I notice that most of the people posting here, that are against abortion, think it's okay to abort the fetus in cases of rape. Why do the mothers rights take precedent here and not in other cases?
Hey Rip, any reasons why you think the answer is "No."?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Controversial and sensitive subject matter, that can elevate our internal emotional feelings, so, lets keep the discussion focusing on the subject, and not personal attacks on ones opinions posted here. My question to you is...at what point is it a fetus, and at what point is it a child? Read on:
This is pretty amazing. Read the story first, then bring up the picture.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
I don't know. It's not my decision or responsibility, and amen to that.
And amen to a woman's right to choose.
-
ISPAR
CHOOSE WHAT?
-
a woman SHOULD have the right to choose..
whether or not she engages in unprotected sex if shes not ready to have a child.
NOT her choice to abort a living human.
btw the religious wackos who are anti birth control are just that. wackos. i think i remember the catholic church being against using birth control since sex should only be for procreation lol.. cmon lets get real.
-
According to your government and my government a fetus isn't a living human. C'mon lets get real. :P
-
OK, guys, let's be consequent. You gotta decide on whether you think human life is just after conception or not.
Rape, incest.
If any of the two actions result in pregnancy, is this pregnancy suddenly less of a human life than if the pregnancy occured by mistake after sex between two consenting adults?
I.e, you take the cause of the pregnancy out of the equation to look at the heart of the issue - which is that some consider it murder of a human person and some do not.
Regardless of the *cause* of the pregnancy, I find it *incredibly hard* to argue that the zygote will develop into a fetus, which might develop into a baby and so on.
Now, this is important. The little one is not guilty because of the circumstances leading to its conception. In saying it is ok for abortions during rape and incest, but not as a choice, you're essentially saying "A is A and A is not A" at the same time. In other words, "life begins and conception and all human life must be protected. But not if life at conception is started by incest or rape, then it is not life".
This is an important point. It is, IMNSHO, virtually impossible to be pro-life and accept abortion because of rape or incest if the basic premise is that it's a human that one kills by having an abortion. it is also true that this is a premise many pro-lifers live by.
If they do not, they're hyporitical or inconsistent in their argument about this.
Moving on: potential vs actual.
As one of the justices said, it is not the duty of the law to take into account the potential, but focus on the actual. I have the potential to do an awful lot of horrible things, yet I haven't been imprisoned for having this potential. Similarly, a sperm and egg has a potential for meeting up. A Zygote has a potential to develop into a fetus, which then has the potential to go through the phases and develop further. In time, it has the potential to result in a reckless totalitarian dictator which kills virtually all life on earth or a person that rid the worlds of many evils.
But we judge by the *actual*, not by the *potential*, because we cannot tell the future - it can be no other way. Think of what judging by the potential would do to a judicial system - I'll sue Ripsnort for being mean now and then, something that took away my potential to view people as all together good. Or I'll sue Toad for being civil since now I cannot fully realize my potential as a true human hater. How can you prove the potential? You cannot.
It is relevant to this debate because a zygote is not an actual person with personhood, as defined by society, but a potential such. Rewriting the law to grant personhood to zygotes would be similar to making a law that "all kids have passed puberty by age 7" - i.e a blatant lie in the face of a MASS of empirical data. A zygote does not have the attributes needed for personhood - YET. Only a potential for it.
One could argue that by rewriting the laws, you change the attributes. No longer is a person required to have a CNS etc etc, and you'll have a situation where a human cell would be viable for status as a person - it does have the potential for multiplying, all be it by duplication or cloning.
-
Zigrat wrote:
a woman SHOULD have the right to choose..
whether or not she engages in unprotected sex if shes not ready to have a child.
NOT her choice to abort a living human.
This is an interesting and common opinion.
It deals with the *intent* of the procreation. Is the intent to have a baby (unprotected sex) or not have a baby (protected sex)?
For it to make sense, one must define the two terms protected and unprotected. if we can agree on the definitions, things get a lot easier :).
Unprotected sex comes in three forms to me:
A) Sex during which no precautions are taken to prohibit the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases.
B) Sex during which no precautions are taken to prohibit a pregnancy
D) Both A and B at the same time.
Similarly, protected sex is
D) Sex during which precautions *are* taken to prohibit the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases
E) Sex during which steps are taken to prohibit a not wanted pregnancy
F) Both D and E.
So, if a woman engages in unprotected sex according to B, according to Zigrat (not him specifically but his argument), she should be allowed to do this, but if a pregnancy occurs, she should not be allowed to terminate it.
On the other hand, if she DOES take precautions, in whatever form, according to definition E, she has clearly indicated that a pregnancy is NOT wanted. Consequently, any pregnancy as a result of this can be seen as anything ranging from nature's course (i.e the guy says "I'll pull it out before I come") to a freak accident (birth control pills and triple condoms).
In both situations, the intent of the woman is clear. She wishes to engage in sexual activities but she does not wish for it to result in a pregnancy. She is aware of the risk and tries to minimize it.
Zigrat does not mention what his stance on this is, but I believe it is similar to the one regarding unprotected sex - i.e she should not have the right to terminate the pregnancy, despite the accidental nature of it.
I'll use an analogy to illustrate why I believe this sort of reasoning is invalid.
Most of us when driving a car do not want
to have an accident and consequently an injury. We take steps to minimze the risk, such as driving carefully, being alert, staying outta the way of reckless drivers as best we can. We use safe cars and seatbelts and airbags to try to minimize the injuries suffered should an accident occur.
Should a crash occur, and should we be injured in it, we'd expect some kind of medical attention.
Now, to link the analogy into my argument...
If a pregnancy occurs as an accident, despite the intent of the woman not to have it happen, despite precautions being taken, does she not have a right to do what she can to control the consequences of the accident in *much the same way* we get medical attention to deal with the consequences of an automobile accident?
It opens a can of worms - does the women's right to control her life override the rights of a growing zygote or fetus within her body?
More in next post...
-
I'll attempt to answer my own question with my own biased opinion and provide some background and/or evidence for it.
It is essentially a question regarding the rights of an actual sentient human versus the rights of a non sentient *potential* human, so now we're back to actual vs potential. The rule of law have established a clear precedent here and would be hard pressed to go against it; it'd risk losing coherence and credibility in doing so. The actual is always (to my knowledge) valued higher than the potential in a court of law. This would indicate that the rights of the woman supercedes the rights of a fetus, *particularly* in cases where the fetus is unwanted - i.e essentially an invading organism in the body of a woman. Brought to existence by actions taken by the woman - in a similar way that injuries to a human after a car crash are brought to existence because of the actions taken by that human prior to the crash. Both could have been prevented, but weren't, and in both cases we deal with consequences that are unwanted.
I'll be a little facetious and daring here.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Parasite \Par"a*site\, n. [F., fr. L. parasitus, Gr. ?, lit., eating beside, or at the table of, another; ? beside + ? to
feed, from ? wheat, grain, food.]
3. (Zo["o]l.)
(a) An animal which lives during the whole or part of its existence on or in the body of some other animal, feeding upon its food, blood, or tissues, as lice, tapeworms, etc.
(b) An animal which steals the food of another, as the parasitic jager.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 :
parasite
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on another and from which it obtains nourishment [ant: host]
Heheh, you get my point. I'm arguing, just to raise some controversy, that an unwanted zygote or fetus could be seen as a foreign organism which obtains nourishments from a host - i.e a parasite :). A human parasite, but a parasite nonetheless. Don't pick this part of my argument apart, it's meant to be more of a thought provoker than anything.
Ok, next step on my agenda:
Human life vs A human life
What constitutes human life? In the broad sense of the definition, that'd include "life built on DNA belonging to the human species". As such, humans cells are human life; our hands, fingers, toes, guts and so forth are human life. Cancer cells growing indefinitely long after its human carrier is dead is human life. Human hair wouldn't be human life, since it'd be dead, but it'd *definitely* be *human*.
A human, however, is more than just human life. It's the combination of a multitude of parts where the result is greater than the sum of its parts. It's more than just human life in the sense that a human clearly is more than a group of cancerous cells.
So, the woman is an *actual* human, an alive, sentient being. The zygote or fetus, while clearly human, is only a *potential* human being.
It is therefore clear to me that the rights of the actual sentient human supercedes the rights of the potential human, or said in other words, the rights of a human being supercedes the rights of human life (which there aren't many of). Human life does not have the right to life, for instance.
Off the soap box. I've let some things out trying to keep the text volume down, but it turned out as more than i wanted anyhow. I just feel that an explanation or stance on this subject is much more complex than simply "it's murder, no it's not"
-
more... (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002015)
-
No argument from me Santa. I think you nailed it. I've considered the parasite/host relationship but haven't had the courage to post it. Even in a healthy pregnancy, the woman's immune system is busily trying to kill off the fetus. One of the functions of the placenta is to protect the fetus from that immune system.
If the government decides to make abortions illegal, then the next step is to define ALL of the exceptions and exclusions. The simple and fairest way is to keep it pro-choice and leave it up to the woman (and hopefully her mate) to decide if they wish to take the fetus to term.
If your own moral compass won't allow you to abort a pregnancy, then don't.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
ISPAR
CHOOSE WHAT?
What is normally meant by that line, grunherz. Whether or not they should abort a fetus, child whatever you call it. The moral discussion and debate on whether a fetus is a human life that deserves protection or not is too sensitive and personal a top, with too many different viewpoints, to give over the government. If you find it wrong, fine. Don't do it. Complain about it. But don't take away someone's right to choose whether or not they want to give birth to new life when they don't want to or aren't ready.
-
Agree with Sandman, StSanta. You hit it on the head.
-
I cant argue that a fetus isnt a parasite, it is
OK im going to do 2 comparisons:
1) when you fly on an airpane, you accept there is a risk of crash. You may try to reduce risk of unjury in a crash by checking up on past histor of your airline, checking reported saftey violations with the NTSB, etcera. Flying is not necessary, but convient, fun, or whatever it is to you.
2) when you have sex, you accept there is a risk that the woman (or if you are the woman, you) will get pregnant. You may try to reduce the risk of this by using birth control (in one of its various forms)
now in the case of the airplane, a crash may still happen. Well, you get hurt, or die. You can't abort dying. You accept the consequences of your choice.
in the case of sex, you or your partner may become pregnant. The consequences should be the same: youre not allowed to abort.
Live with your actions. Accept your responsibilities.
I will give another example. I know someone (i wont say who) who was actually considering an abortion. I talked to them, and dissuaded them (she really didnt need much dissuading, though she is pro choice). Lets just say that I love the product of that pregnancy very much, and there would be a big hole in my life if the abortion had taken place.
Like I said, its a womans right to choose to remain celebate if pregnancy isnt wanted. Its a woman's right to choose if she wants to give up the child for adoption if she cannot or is not willing to support it.
But it is not a choice, but a RESPONSIBILITY to bring the baby to term.
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
But it is not a choice, but a RESPONSIBILITY to bring the baby to term.
No, actually it is a choice, and I for one hope is stays that way. Your comparison to risking death in an airline crash is rediculous. So, if there was a way to "abort" dying in the crash you'd be against it, because you took the risk of flying and should live (die) with the consequences? But whatever, that's beside the point entirely.
You don't like abortions, you don't think they're right? Great, don't have one. Oh wait, that's right, you're not a woman so you CAN'T have one. Nor could you possibly understand all of the reasons behind why a woman would be willing to have an abortion.
Like you, I feel abortions are wrong. Unlike you, I believe it's a woman's right to choose, and it's none of my business what she does with her body.
SOB
-
But it is not a choice, but a RESPONSIBILITY to bring the baby to term.
That is one opinion. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't share it.
-
saying its a womans right to choose is idiotic!
if it is why cant she kill it after it has been born, its still a parasite by santas definition. a newborn cant live without its mother.
sorry but i think you pro choicers are idiots. saying its someones choice to kill someone.
-
"If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot..."
Whoa... nice argument Zig... I think that did the trick. Everyone is changing their mind now that the name calling has begun. Bravo.
-
sorry i said your an idiot, but there is no way you can defend its the womans right to choose what she does with her body, since your argument also would mean laws against things like child abuse are also not valid. Do you like child abuse?
According to you, its the womans right not to work. therefore her right not to make enough money to buy food. thereore her right to malnourish her child.
a person's right to do what they want with their body ends when it inflicts harm on someone else.
-
Good lord Zig, what in the hell are you talking about. Remove a baby from the mother's womb and chances are it won't survive. Remove a baby from a mother's home and all it needs is another person to take care of it. And remember, just because you may think it's a person from the moment of conception doesn't mean everyone else does.
I must say tho', your idiot argument was pretty compelling, and I'm beginning to see the light! :p
SOB
-
Ah... now you've hit on the crux of the entire argument. Is a fetus a person and does it have the same rights as a post-birth human? If so, do those rights supercede those of the host (mother)?
I don't own a womb. I'm not about to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her womb or any other part of her body.
Oh... and Eagler, the left isn't pro-abortion. The left is pro-choice. There is a difference. The left doesn't want the government or anyone else meddling with a woman's right to make decisions regarding her body.
Let's take the pro-life argument one step further. Assume that a woman has no choice regarding abortion and all pregnancies must be taken to term. What if it was discovered that the fetus suffered from spin a bifida (or any other inutero treatable disease) just like the story posted. Would the woman have a choice about surgically treating the fetus or would she have no right to choose that either?
[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
please note what i said:
a person's right to do what they want with their body ends when it inflicts harm on someone else.
treating birth defects in utero is not inflicting harm on someone else.
Also note that I am not an opponent of "mercy killing" -- i believe in freedom of choice, as long as it doesn't harm someone else.
Since you guys (some of you) define the beginning of human life at birth, what about the mothers and doctors who have performed/had performed abortions where there was life after the fetus was removed. The fetus was then terminated. According to you, this should be a clear case of murder? Or at the very least manslaughter.
I'm not opposed to abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger - i view this as very similar to the right to defend yourself when confronted by deadly force by an assalant. Its a similar thing. In the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't choose to have intercourse, and therefore didn't willingly expose herself to the risk of pregnancy, so I think that in these cases it should also be allowed.
-
Fellow Farmers,
Did we not plow this same field a short time ago?
:D
Right to choose? I guess so. I believe you will be held accountable for what you did in life at some time after death. The Supremes said "let there be choice". And so there was.
If there's a hearafter, the ones that run that will probably have a firm idea on "when life begins". Waving Roe V Wade at the powers that be in any such afterlife may not help your case. Or it might. :)
If ya just die and there's nothing.. well, no sweat then, eh?
Now, how about the Right To Pay?
I really, really think all these people that have the right to choice also have the right to pay the bills for the choice.
Want an abortion? Fine; upon your head. Oh, BTW, when they want to be paid, YOU pay them.
No need for my funding via the vehicle of Federal or State taxes. (Considering the usual exceptions.. rape, mother's health, etc.)
Bet that's not a popular idea is it? If I could, I'd choose not to support abortion for any birth control type reason with my taxes.
I am now ready to recieve your slings and arrows... but I'm probably not going to respond. I'm trying to cut down on "posts in previously plowed ground."
Enjoy!
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
treating birth defects in utero is not inflicting harm on someone else.
It is if you're the woman. Bet it even leaves a scar. :P
And... I noted what you said. here I'll say it again: Ah... now you've hit on the crux of the entire argument. Is a fetus a person and does it have the same rights as a post-birth human? If so, do those rights supercede those of the host (mother)?
I'm not opposed to abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger - i view this as very similar to the right to defend yourself when confronted by deadly force by an assalant. Its a similar thing. In the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't choose to have intercourse, and therefore didn't willingly expose herself to the risk of pregnancy, so I think that in these cases it should also be allowed.
And who is going to screen these cases to make sure it's justified? The government? That's the entire point of pro-choice. Pro-choice means let the woman decide if the abortion is warranted without government involvement and all of the bureaucratic wickets that come with that.
You see, there's room for anti-abortionists in the pro-choice world. Welcome! Of course, your influence with regard to abortions doesn't extend beyond your own womb. Cool huh?
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
Sounds pretty reasonable to me Toad...why should you or anyone else's taxes have to pay for a procedure that's unecessary. Of course, that may mean we'll all be paying to help raise the kid later...d'oh! :)
SOB
-
toad:
I believe we *are* plowing some new ground :).
Earlier discussions haven't been as well articulated as this one, with a few notable exceptions.
Zigrat, I find it unfortunate that you describe pro choicers as "idiots" - I believe several pro choicers involved in this discussion have a substantial intelligence. I'm as much an idiot as I am an Einstein :).
One point brought up by llb I think is that there's a difference between being pro choice and being pro abortion. I don't think most pro choicers see abortion as a very good and healthy thing that is enjoyable and fun and should be advocated. It's a medical procedure and as such carries with it physical risks. beyond that there's a substantial mental burden to be shouldered.
Toad, you bring up an interesting aspect of this discussion; the religious one. I suspect yours is based on the western Judeo-Christian deity and you suggest that man's laws are arbitrary, and in the end we shall all be judged by the Great Arbitrator in the life to come after this one is done with.
I have no qualms with this sort of argument, as long as one remembers the basic "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion" that's a constitutional right in the US (I do believe the US constitution is an extremely fine legal document and basis for a society).
As such it really should not be used as an argument for pro life. It could be seen as pushing your religious beliefs unto others and if done so by the government, it would quite clearly be unconstitutional. It's something to consider, however, for women with Christian beliefs.
I cannot take that argument to heart. Not so much because I'm a non theist, but because the premises on which it is based is, in my opinion, weak.
I'd argue that it's based on Pascal's Wager. for those unfamiliar with it, it goes something like:
If you are a Christian and there is a God, you go to heaven. If you are a Christian and there ain't, nothing happens.
On the other hand, if you're a non theist and there is a God, you go to hell. If there ain't, nothing happens. Therefore, it is better to bet on the odds and you have nothing to lose if you're a Christian.
There are several flaws in this argument, some logical ones. If needed I can point to a website maintained by a friend which deals with it in detail. I only need one to illustrate my point: what if the God is barney the Atheist Loving god, which sends all believers to hell, and non theists to heaven?
My point being, that despite what god's words in the bible say, even Christians admit that god's will and ways cannot be comprehended by a feeble human mind. As such, it serves no purpose second guessing him/her/it. The bible itself does not say anything directly about abortion - all passages are rather open for interpretation. I've had this discussion before and won't mind having it again :). it basically boils down to the separation of soul and matter and when ensoulment takes place.
At any rate, the religious argument is, based on the bible, not very strong because there are numerous references to abortions in the bible, some done by god or ordered by god. The bible is also very clear on when a human is granted personhood, which involved being given a soul, and that is *not* at conception.
Gotta love it; I have this guy who's a Jehova's Witness who's teaching me the bible. he probably thinks he can convert me, but I see it as very educational and I've found passages that contain some gold nuggets of wisdom.
At any rate, it's only women who're up for condemnation, since they're doing the "killing". Well, and some few male doctors.
-
Ok Pro-Choicers, Tell me the exact moment a fetus becomes a child.
Well?
You guys have probably never been around a real-life abortion clinic, or if ya have you were too stoned to figure out what you were doing. You guys are brainwashed into thinking abortion is some "right" of the mother.<american flag waving proudly in the background> I visited a clinic 11 years ago. I paid 300 bucks to have my first-born torn from its mothers womb and thrown away. And you know what really stinks? I talked her into it. My (now) wife wanted to have the baby. I knew right from wrong, but I chose the easy way. If that abortion would have been harder to get, I'd now have 4 children instead of 3. My oldest would be going itno the 5th grade. Think about what I just said. It's that simple.
Abortion is tearing a developing baby from its mothers womb. It is a sad thing that we should try to prevent.
If there is a law passed that infringes on some womens rights but saves the lives of many babies, doesn't the infringement of *rights* not get outweighed by the lives that would be saved?
The long-winded posts make you think "hmmm, yeah, these pro-choicers have it figured out, who are WE to tell the mom what to do?!?! I mean this is the new millenium man! Get with the program!"
No thanks, you guys can have your program, I'm gonna try to help prevent others from screwing up like I did.
Don't be blinded by BS.
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Ok Pro-Choicers, Tell me the exact moment a fetus becomes a child.
Here ya go:
Main Entry: vi·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL
Date: circa 1832
1 : capable of living; especially : capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support <the normal human fetus is usually viable by the end of the seventh month>
-
<S> hblair
major courage to share such an intimate life changing and personal experience as you just did.
I had a similar experience with my oldest son, 22 years old, and one of his "girlfriends". He paid for her abortion not even knowing if it was his child, not even knowing if she was truly pregnant. Seemed she'd been down that road before. He was scared into acting irrationally after acting irresponsibly by having unprotected sex out of wedlock. His mother and I did not know of the situation until after. Makes me sick everytime I think of it..
Today's "young adults" are a real confused bunch. Makes us 70's kids look like Einstein’s...
So don't tell me abortion isn't used PRIMARILY as a last resort birth control method ... anyone else wanna get down and dirty with a personal experience of this legalized murder?? Maybe one that was a glorious experience for the mother and/or family? I doubt it!
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]
-
lol sandman. You cut and pasted the definition of "viable" :p.
My point was that there are premature babies being born who live at much less gestation periods thanks to modern medicine.
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Some of you guys just don't read well:
Original post:
"Controversial and sensitive subject matter, that can elevate our internal emotional feelings,
so, lets keep the discussion focusing on the subject, and not personal attacks on ones
opinions posted here.
[/i][/b]
-
Hblair, I'm sorry you had to go through such an experience and I'm sorry it turned out being a wrong move for you. However, that doesn't mean that it's going to be the wrong move for everyone, and it doesn't make it right to take away their choice just because they may regret it later.
Wouldn't it be better for people with stories such as yourself to share these stories with women planning to get abortions and then still let them make their chioce?
SOB
-
Well, SOB....
If I was given "CHOICE" I'd happily let them figure out what part of my tax goes to fund abortion. Use that instead to really support a child and I'll happily let them double that part of my taxes.
But, but, but... blubber, blubber... I don't have CHOICE! ;) I HAVE to PAY! Unlike some other people who have "choice". :p
Santa, I really didn't see much new ground in here. It still boils down to "when" doesn't it? (and I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, btw. But I'm sure you noticed that.)
At least it is a more diginified thread.
Adios, Amigos!
-
Originally posted by hblair:
lol sandman. You cut and pasted the definition of "viable" :p.
My point was that there are premature babies being born who live at much less gestation periods thanks to modern medicine.
Yes, but those babies are not viable in the strictest definition of the word. In any case, late-term abortions that occur during the third trimester are rare and are typically done when there is a threat to the mother's life. I doubt you'll find many cases where a woman has aborted late term simply because she decided she couldn't go through the rest of the pregnancy. Late-term abortions are extreme cases but somehow the right wing wants to use them as an argument.
Also... salute to Hblair for sharing... I've been where you were. It's a difficult decision. No doubt.
-
Originally posted by SOB:
Hblair, I'm sorry you had to go through such an experience and I'm sorry it turned out being a wrong move for you. However, that doesn't mean that it's going to be the wrong move for everyone, and it doesn't make it right to take away their choice just because they may regret it later.
Wouldn't it be better for people with stories such as yourself to share these stories with women planning to get abortions and then still let them make their chioce?
SOB
Most women don't tend to listen to a guys abortion experiences. Can't say I blame them. Abortion is used as a contraception waaay too often. I knew a girl way back when who had had 2 abortions before she was 19. Didn't even know who the father of the second one was. But hey, she was exercising her <drumroll please> *Right to Choose* <American flag waves proudly in the background>
I'm glad I live in Alabama, and I bet you guys are too.
:)
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Face it - there will always things happening that we don't approve of. There will always be cases of women using abortion as birth control - whether its legal or not. The fact is, though, that for the vast majority of women it is a very difficult and extremely personal decision. Its not "Oops! How inconvenient - I'd better run out and get an abortion before the trip to Cancun". (And, since there's been sharing here, yes I've been in the situation. And I think now, as I thought then, that it was ultimately something SHE had to decide. Not me, and CERTAINLY not the government).
Really, this discussion seems moot to me, since the real question is not whether there is or is not a right of choice but whether women will be sanctioned for exercising their choice.
As for whether one should have to pay for it in taxes, it reminds me of the people who wanted to not pay the part of their income tax that went to supporting the war in Vietnam. They didn't get very far with that one, either. Imagine the chaos it they let people chose what their taxes would or wouldn't pay for - not to mention the size of the bureaucracy needed to run the system. You think we have big government now?
- Yoj
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
The fact is, though, that for the vast majority of women it is a very difficult and extremely personal decision. Its not "Oops! How inconvenient - I'd better run out and get an abortion before the trip to Cancun".
Where did ya get these statistics? I'm not being smart, just wondering.
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Abortion is used as a contraception waaay too often. I knew a girl way back when who had had 2 abortions before she was 19. Didn't even know who the father of the second one was. But hey, she was exercising her <drumroll please> *Right to Choose* <American flag waves proudly in the background>
Heh, I hear that, and I agree that a situation like that is pretty rediculous. And it makes no sense to me at all, particularly now with the morning after pill legal and available. However, I still feel that it's her right to choose to do that. I'm not sure I'd care to know her, but it's her right. Also, she's an extreme, and not every case is like hers.
It doesn't matter that you live in Alabama. I'll see you at the con. And since you've disagreed with me here, I'll have to beat you up! ;)
SOB
BTW...Toad, I wasn't being sarcastic toward ya - I really do agree about the tax thing. I was however, being sarcastic about another societal issue at the same time :)
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Where did ya get these statistics? I'm not being smart, just wondering.
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
I'll try to dig up the place I got it and post it.
Still think about it - for even the most amoral and self-centered woman, of all the alternatives abortion is by far the most painful and expensive (except perhaps carrying to term). With all the available birth control alternatives, I can't imagine anyone chosing it as a preferred method. Perhaps the VERY stupid or the insane, but I'm not sure what you can do about them, and they will always be a small minority, by definition. For the rest, its a last resort, without even considering any of the almost unavoidable emotional considerations, the moral implications, and all the rest of the accompanying baggage. Its just not an easy thing for most women to do.
- Yoj
-
For those of you that are Christians, http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm) is a good thing to check out. Personhood seems to be granted after 30 days. Or when the body somehow is injected with a soul.
Of course this is just your average religious assertion that has no base in science, but nevermind that.
Legally, personhood is granted at birth. One could of course change laws and it'd be quite interesting to have people sue their mother and father for inhaling second/third hand smoke and so forth :). Or any other fantasy suit of your imagination.
Medically speaking, a fetus is not viable to life ex uterus until around week 23, and then only with *massive* medical intervention and a very high mortality rate, and empirical evidence shows that births this early result in a host of various sequela defects, such as with ligaments and so forth. There's a book by Langman (medical textbook) that deals with it more in depth if anyone is interested.
Generally speaking, major organs and so forth are in place around month 3 and spend the remaining time growing and obtaining functionality. I.e the definite transition from embryo to fetus has taken place around month 3.
I've had a brief conversation with my sis on the topic and she indicated that the pragmatic approach on which most laws are based appear to be the distinction between in uterus and ex uterus - i.e the fetus is for practical purposes considered a fetus as long as it is in the mother's womb, and a baby once outside. Not very satisfactory. I'll continue to look into this; I've got a bioethics book laying around here somewhere I really should read <g>.
At any rate, it seems for whatever purposes we ha e with this discussion, it's primarily a legal one.
An embryo is a living entity during its first developmental period. This is important, because it is much more likely to to live than a zygote (i.e the egg after first cell split (zy=2)or a blastomer (egg divived to 8 cells)or morula (16 cells), all of the aforementioned states not having achieved differentiation or cyntysia-formation.
As a last teaser and a very good question: consider the times when a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy - in these cases it is clear that society views the woman's life as more important than the potential baby's (or baby's, if you're in that camp). If given equal status, we'd have an interesting problem: who should have a right to live? Let nature have it course? Let the woman defend her own life? Let the fetus/babys right supercede that of the woman?
There's a very clear precedent on this one.
This whole topic really is a can o' worms. It's not just about abortion - it's about *everything* that can happen during a pregnancy. Abortion is just one of those things. I'd be happy to explore others. I love such discussions for some twisted reason.
Woman's right vs child, if her life is in danger?
Late abortions like in 7th month are impractical, difficult and dangerous and very much an exception.
-
Ok, I think it'd be unfair to only promote my own views without looking into the other side. I did a quickie web search and came up with a very interesting pro-life site, that's done the way i like it - factual, well argued and built with references. it can be found at
http://www.bioethix.org/resources/aps/beckwith-personhood.htm (http://www.bioethix.org/resources/aps/beckwith-personhood.htm)
and I can recommend it.
If anyone is sick enough to want to discuss this article with me, I'm up for it as it is not without flaws :). I doubt that one can find a much more coherent and consistent article than this one on the net though; it is quite good.
-
Interesting article... It makes a good case that a fetus is indeed a person.
So... that leaves the rights argument. Do the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother. Who has the greater claim to the womb?
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Personhood seems to be granted after 30 days. Or when the body somehow is injected with a soul..
I'll time that next go round, given the would be mom makes the right "Choice" :)
-
Isn't the web amazing? Two or three clicks and...
(http://www.agi-usa.org/graphics/fb_induced_abortion/fb_induced_abortion_f2.gif)
That's US figures, 1997 from this site:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
Which also has this chart:
(http://www.agi-usa.org/graphics/fb_induced_abortion/fb_induced_abortion_f1.gif)
The 1997 dot there looks like 22.2 per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
Another site, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html) , gives 1,184,758 as the total number of legal US abortions in 1997.
So, (in 1997) apparently 1% of 1,184,758 legal abortions were 21 weeks or later.
Not real definitive but a bit more clear.
So it was ONLY ~ 11,847 little pairs of hands like those in the picture that got sliced, extracted and flushed.
In the end, each of us answers to himself. I guess I've made my CHOICE. :D
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Right... and those 11,000 aborted simply because the mother made a choice. These were no doubt extreme cases involving irreperable birth defects and/or threat to the very life of the mother.
This is a non-issue.
-
Maybe. Maybe not.
Some undoubtedly. Some undoubtedly not.
Where's your supporting data for the hypothesis?
...and assuming that some are NOT... how many would it take to get your attention? 1? 10? 100? 1000?
As I said, in the end, we all answer to our inner selves.
;)
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Hmmm... data on late term abortions... that'll take some digging.
This is the position of N.O.W. with regard to late term abortions:
Late-term abortions are not undertaken lightly. Most involve wanted pregnancies that go tragically wrong when the woman's life or health is endangered or the fetus develops abnormalities incompatible with life.
More figures from N.O.W.:
*Over 95% of all abortions are performed during the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, while about one-half of 1% of legal abortions are performed during the third trimester.
*A late term abortion is not a procedure taken lightly. Most involve wanted pregnancies that go tragically wrong when the woman's life or health is endangered or the fetus develops abnormalities incompatible with life.
*Medical experts state that the safest method of late pregnancy termination for some women is the dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure. The National Abortion Federation estimates that fewer than 600 D&X procedures are performed each year.
While rooting around looking, I've found just as many pro-life statistics pointing to late-term abortions and stating their version of the "truth".
Either one side is lying or both are lying. I suspect that the latter is true. Everyone has an agenda.
-
I really don't have a dog in this fight. Just stirring the soup and looking for fact rather than conjecture, I guess.
Anyway, this from a Pro-Choice sight:
http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/library/bllatetermconfusion.htm (http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/library/bllatetermconfusion.htm)
"A pregnancy is composed of three trimesters. The first trimester is from the beginning of week 1 through week 13; the second trimester is from the beginning of week 14 through week 26; and the third trimester is from the beginning of week 27 through week 39."
...
About 12% of abortions in the United States, or about 150,000 abortions, take place in the second trimester.
...
Finally, let's consider the reasons for abortion.
During the first trimester, women have abortions for various reasons mostly having to do with their own feeling that this isn't a good time to have a child. During the second trimester, most women are still having abortions for these reasons, but some are having them because they've learned that their fetuses are abnormal, or they have concerns for their own health.
As the third trimester approaches, past the 24th week, women only have abortions because they've been given a diagnosis of severe fetal defect or, very rarely, for their own safety. Most states prohibit abortion past the 24th week, and in any case it's extremely difficult to find a provider for such a late abortion."
So, there's a little more light on the subject but not much.
It would seem to support your previous hypothesis that after the 24th week anyway. Possibly not at the 21st week, the time of the picture in question, however. They still cite "reasons mostly having to do with their own feeling that this isn't a good time to have a child" in this area.
As you say, I think it would be pretty difficult to get unbiased stats from ANY source.
Figures lie and liars figure. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Figures lie and liars figure. ;)
This is truth.