A very Touchy Subject...

[Ray Jones]

Cancer.

 

...I think you mean "psychologically", Ray?

No, because actually I meant, err, yes, uhm, naja, a typo, indeed, a pretty ugly typo it was. >_> ^^

[Web Rider]

The thing is, I cannot think of a case where the mother was in serious danger if she went through with the pregnancy, knew it beforehand, and where an abortion would have helped.

 

Well, there are all the adverse effects that STDs can cause on birthing of children. As well as the occasional woman dies from pregnancy or becomes infertile.

[Corinthian]

That's not what I asked. I put up three criteria: Serious danger, knew, abortion would help. I can't think of a single case where the woman knew beforehand that she would die in birth. And who aborts to save themselves from becoming sterile?

[Ray Jones]

When cancer is detected during pregnancy, it becomes a possibility that your criteria are met.

[MdKnightR]

The thing is, I cannot think of a case where the mother was in serious danger if she went through with the pregnancy, knew it beforehand, and where an abortion would have helped.

 

My stepdaughter has congestive heart failure. The doctors have told her that having another child could very well end her life. In the event that she got pregnant again, abortion could well be her only option to live.

[Pho3nix]

This topic has been discussed before. In numerous threads.

 

My answer is still the same, Pro-Choice. I consider the option to do an abortion to be a human right.

[Corinthian]

Alright. Fair enough. And how rare is that form of heart failure, or forms of cancer that would make giving birth/caesarean section fatal, or be fatal before that was even a choice?

[mimartin]

Unfortunately, since the intervention of the government (Roe v. Wade), abortion has become more of a means of birth control than anything else.

Wasn’t there government intervention into this question before Roe v. Wade? My understanding is there were laws on the books at the time preventing abortion in the United States and according to the decision of the Supreme Court most of those laws violated a constitutional right to privacy. So I’d say government intervention into the question of abortion goes back longer than Roe v. Wade.

 

I did not vote in the poll because I do not see this issue simply as some people. While my personal beliefs are anti-abortion, why should my personal beliefs be placed onto another? If you force women to give birth to unwanted children, what will happen to these children? If you only allow abortion in extreme case, who will decide when the case is extreme, the woman and the doctor or the government? Are we going to force a rape victim to defend herself in open court to prove that she was indeed raped in order to terminate the pregnancy? Is she to be victimized twice?

I believe that abortion is a medical procedure that should only be performed with the advice of a doctor without government interference.

I agree with this statement. I would add, that a parent or guardian should be involved in the decision if we are talking about a minor.

[Achilles]

I agree with this statement. I would add, that a parent or guardian should be involved in the decision if we are talking about a minor.

Unless, of course, the parent/guardian was the one to do the impregnating. Hence why I disagree with this caveat based on the rationale that you provided for rape above.

[mimartin]

Unless, of course, the parent/guardian was the one to do the impregnating. Hence why I disagree with this caveat based on the rationale that you provided for rape above.

Very good point and one I did not even consider. I concede the point because I could not agree more with you.

[Achilles]

"Undue burden", ftw!

[Aeroldoth]

Wasn’t there government intervention into this question before Roe v. Wade?

Abortion has been legal, then illegal, then legal, then illegal, many times.

 

why should my personal beliefs be placed onto another?

Absolutely.

 

If you force women to give birth to unwanted children, what will happen to these children?

This is the major point for me than most never seem to address in abortion debates. After forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want... what then? How can life for an unwanted, unloved child be good?

 

Those who are against abortion call it murder. I call an unwanted life torture. And, IMHO, torture is the worse of the two.

[Corinthian]

Easy to say when it's not your life being snuffed out, Aeroldoth. Obviously, no adopted child is ever happy.

[Achilles]

And the orphaned children that are never adopted?

 

There seems to be a misconception that all children that are put up for adoption eventually are adopted.

 

It really does seem to me that adoption (or lack thereof) has almost nothing to do with abortion debate. We may eventually get to a point in our society where every orphan is adopted, but that won't eliminate the issues surrounding a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child.

[Corinthian]

The natural human instinct is self-preservation. Thus, it's hardcoded into our minds that Life > Death. No matter how bad it gets, it can still get better when you're alive.

 

Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb? What makes a fetal child have less rights than older child? Should children be tied to the whim of their parents until they're capable of supporting themselves without help? Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb?

The same reason she has the right to menstruate away unused eggs. The same reason why a man has the right to masturbate. Because sperm, egg, and embryos are not humans.

 

Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?

Trivializing much:rolleyes:?

 

And who aborts to save themselves from becoming sterile?

Err... those who want have more kids? Am I missing something here?

[Achilles]

The natural human instinct is self-preservation. Thus, it's hardcoded into our minds that Life > Death. No matter how bad it gets, it can still get better when you're alive.

I might be inclined to agree with much of what you say here. I think the biggest difference between us is going to be our definition of "life". You're clearly thinking along the lines of "third trimester/clearly alive" whereas I'm thinking "first trimester/does not meet criteria for 'alive' or second/third trimester/medical necessity", etc.

 

So, yes, if we were talking about an sentient organism that was clearly alive, I would agree. A mother should have a very good reason for aborting any child once that is clearly alive. Since the U.S. has existing laws that already support this thinking, I don't think you'll have to do much to sway the legal and medical communities.

 

Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb?

Again, you're thinking killing a child (late 2nd trimester/3rd trimester) whereas I tend to consider the majority of abortions, which are in the 1st trimester (an aborted fetus).

 

I would like to think that I could answer your question specifically, however your question isn't very specific to begin with. Are we talking about a 13 year old girl that has been raped by a family member? A woman in her late thirties that finds out that her child is going to be born with severe birth defects due to complication with her fertility treatment? I would tend to think that the specific source of that woman's rights are going to stem from slightly different ethical arguments.

 

What makes a fetal child have less rights than older child?

Because a fetus is not a child. What makes a house fly have less rights than humpback whale (the latter protected by international law due to its endangered status...at least last time I checked)?

 

Should children be tied to the whim of their parents until they're capable of supporting themselves without help?

Certainly not. Did someone suggest that?

 

Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?

Well, clearly you presume much in your scenario. Perhaps you have a more realistic argument that we could consider with greater seriousness?

[Web Rider]

That's not what I asked. I put up three criteria: Serious danger, knew, abortion would help. I can't think of a single case where the woman knew beforehand that she would die in birth. And who aborts to save themselves from becoming sterile?

 

Lots of people who ya know, want to have kids again.

 

How about an entopic pregnancy, one where the embryo attaches itsself to the wall of the fallopian tubes?

 

I agree with this statement. I would add, that a parent or guardian should be involved in the decision if we are talking about a minor.

Involved, but not have any actual say, if the parent wants the child and is willing to raise it as parents and the daughter is willing to do that, OK, but I don't think parents should have the right to tell you to get an abortion or prevent it.

In addition to Achilles point, I think the impregnated child should be allowed to see the doctor first, as while alone they may tell them that it was the father, or uncle who did it.

 

Easy to say when it's not your life being snuffed out, Aeroldoth. Obviously, no adopted child is ever happy.

Anti-choice is easy to say when you're not getting pregnant and know you never will.

 

Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb? What makes a fetal child have less rights than older child? Should children be tied to the whim of their parents until they're capable of supporting themselves without help? Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?

 

for the exact points you mention, a baby can be left at home, even for an extended preiod of time and while it is harmful to them, it will not kill them. Hypothetically remove the fetus from the womb and it dies, not in an hour, not in a day, but right then.

[mimartin]

Involved, but not have any actual say, if the parent wants the child and is willing to raise it as parents and the daughter is willing to do that, OK, but I don't think parents should have the right to tell you to get an abortion or prevent it.

In addition to Achilles point, I think the impregnated child should be allowed to see the doctor first, as while alone they may tell them that it was the father, or uncle who did it.

Already conceded the point, I did not think this one out from every angle, I’ll admit I was plain stupid. I was putting myself in the place of the parent and I personally would like to know about everything involving the health of someone I am responsible for. I also know I would never do such a thing. As to an uncle doing it, well there would be a very late term abortion in my family and it would not involve the minor. So yea, I’ll agree the child needs to see the doctor first.

 

Easy to say when it's not your life being snuffed out, Aeroldoth. Obviously, no adopted child is ever happy.

Who is to say the child will be given up for adoption in the first place? We see on the news at least every other month about a new born being found in a dumpster. How many are never found? How many more would show up there without legal abortions?

[PoiuyWired]

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, distribute condoms and support comprehensive sex ed. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Jumping up and down and yelling 'ABORTION IS TEH SIN&WR0NG!!1' won't help the tiniest bit.

 

^^

QFE.

 

Plus, the world is overpopulated as is, do you really want to bring in an unwant child that would probably be unloved?

 

Abnormal human spawn and dangerous pregnancy and such events aside, I do think that sometimes it would be nice to just end it early if the pregnancy is not wanted. That is on top of the over population, the how a kid can be expensive, and how ie may be a burden and how it takes so much resources financially, physically and mentally.

 

Personally I think that if seomeone is not prepared and ready to accept the pregnancy then don't let it be born. Its not a good thing for the parents and definitely not a good thing for the new born.

[Samuel Dravis]

What does it mean to be alive?

What does it mean to be sentient?

 

But it's not possible to give an answer that includes all possible definitions of alive or sentient, because those concepts are not sharply defined. That is a good thing, certainly, because it allows us to call many things alive and sentient which might fall outside of a more concrete definition. However, it also means that this debate will go absolutely nowhere, because people use specific definitions of "alive", "sentience", etc., while discussing this topic.

 

Those concrete definitions are not what we mean by "alive", just as when we talk about "games" we don't simply mean "moving carved shapes around on a field in accordance with certain rules." While this definition may fit "board games", not everything we call a game is described by it.

 

An early fetus can be said to be alive just as correctly as it could be said to not be, and to argue that it is one or the other is simply a misunderstanding of how we use the word. If specific definitions are used and are understood by all parties, then progress can be had. --But not until then.

[Achilles]

What does it mean to be alive?

What does it mean to be sentient?

 

But it's not possible to give an answer that includes all possible definitions of alive or sentient, because those concepts are not sharply defined.

Well, we do know what "dead" is, correct? So if something is either "alive" or "not alive" it would seem that we could simply test for "not aliveness". If a 87 year old man no longer has a heartbeat or brain activity, we would declare him to be dead (or for the sake of my argument, "not alive"). By the same criteria, a 4 week old fetus with no heart (let alone heartbeat) or brain (let alone brain activity ) would also meet that "not alive" status.

 

"Sentient" might be tougher to define and if you are taking me to task for using the term, I acknowledge my having been corrected and thank you for doing so.

 

Wrong. I don't care whether it's first, second, or third trimester, really. It's just as evil to kill a child no matter how old the child is.

You choose to define "child" arbitrarily. I do not.

 

How does it not meet the criteria for alive? It's obviously animate. It's cells are reproducing. Hell, it HAS cells.

So do mucus and fecal matter. How far would you like to take this?

 

Once it is clearly alive? From what I remember, the criteria for Alive is that it is capable of cellular reproduction. That's pretty much the meat of what goes on in the womb.

Yes, that is one of the criteria that are necessary to meet the requirements of life.

 

I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.

And we're uncaring monsters? Nice.

 

How is the fetus not a child? Okay, if you prefer, we can use the term infant. I refuse to use the term "Fetus", as it's one of you Pro-Choice types little tricks for making us forget that your precious 'fetuses' are a member of the Human Species.

The medical term is "fetus". Before that they are "embryos" and before that they are "blastocysts". I'm sure someone with more medical knowledge than I could break those distinctions down further. "Child" is reserved for actual children, just as "infant" is usually reserved for actual infants. I don't think we're going to get very far arbitrarily assigning values to labels.

 

With that out of the way, would you please be so kind as to answer my question? TIA.

 

Yes. You're pro-choice. A big part of the Pro-Choice movement is the idea that a woman should have the right to kill the baby for any reason. I mean, good grief, if it were only in genuinely reasonable cases, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.

I am not "pro-choice", I am pro-abortion. I have never been part of any organized abortion movement, so I'm not sure how cleanly your labels will apply.

 

A big part of my rationale for supporting abortion rights is that I do not believe that the government has the right the force a woman to have a baby. The government already has laws in place that restrict 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Fetus' don't have heartbeats or nervous systems in the first trimester.

 

Yes, I am aware that eventually it will likely develop a great deal of cognitive capabilities, but only if it is given enough time and the proper conditions in which to replicate. (Those conditions usually being the uterus of it's host). However, this argument can also be made of any of the millions and millions of sperms cells that I have generated in my life, all of which I have (so far, so good) denied the correct conditions in which to multiply into a separate, cognizant being. Am I a monster for participating in safe sex practices? Have I committed murder because I let those poor sperm cells die without finding an egg to join with? Are women who choose not to get pregnant every single month that they are able being evil?

I think you are far too lax with your criteria. I mean, having a egg ready for fertilization each month is just the beginning. Any woman that isn't spending every possible moment copulating in hopes of fertilizing said egg is taking a terrible chance that the egg might be wasted. Futhermore, I think it's safe to say that any woman that isn't perpetually pregnant is also thumbing her nose at the gift of life that is present inside her.

 

Therefore, any woman that is truly serious about valuing life will spend every possible moment trying to fertilize her egg. After her OB/GYN has declared her to be in good health after the birth of her previous child, she should once more begin working diligently to become pregnant again.

 

I think the time for half-measures has passed. The "culture of life" is too important.

[Corinthian]

Okay. Starting from the top.

 

 

I might be inclined to agree with much of what you say here. I think the biggest difference between us is going to be our definition of "life". You're clearly thinking along the lines of "third trimester/clearly alive" whereas I'm thinking "first trimester/does not meet criteria for 'alive' or second/third trimester/medical necessity", etc.

Wrong. I don't care whether it's first, second, or third trimester, really. It's just as evil to kill a child no matter how old the child is.

 

How does it not meet the criteria for alive? It's obviously animate. It's cells are reproducing. Hell, it HAS cells.

 

So, yes, if we were talking about an sentient organism that was clearly alive, I would agree. A mother should have a very good reason for aborting any child once that is clearly alive. Since the U.S. has existing laws that already support this thinking, I don't think you'll have to do much to sway the legal and medical communities.

Once it is clearly alive? From what I remember, the criteria for Alive is that it is capable of cellular reproduction. That's pretty much the meat of what goes on in the womb.

Again, you're thinking killing a child (late 2nd trimester/3rd trimester) whereas I tend to consider the majority of abortions, which are in the 1st trimester (an aborted fetus).

Ah, yes, the magical gulf where suddenly, sentience leaps into existence at the moment of the third trimester. I don't really care when the abortion happens, it's still murder, even if it doesn't have equivalent physical and mental capabilities to a fully-grown human.

 

I would like to think that I could answer your question specifically, however your question isn't very specific to begin with. Are we talking about a 13 year old girl that has been raped by a family member? A woman in her late thirties that finds out that her child is going to be born with severe birth defects due to complication with her fertility treatment? I would tend to think that the specific source of that woman's rights are going to stem from slightly different ethical arguments.

I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.

Because a fetus is not a child. What makes a house fly have less rights than humpback whale (the latter protected by international law due to its endangered status...at least last time I checked)?

 

How is the fetus not a child? Okay, if you prefer, we can use the term infant. I refuse to use the term "Fetus", as it's one of you Pro-Choice types little tricks for making us forget that your precious 'fetuses' are a member of the Human Species.

 

Certainly not. Did someone suggest that?

Yes. You're pro-choice. A big part of the Pro-Choice movement is the idea that a woman should have the right to kill the baby for any reason. I mean, good grief, if it were only in genuinely reasonable cases, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.

 

Well, clearly you presume much in your scenario. Perhaps you have a more realistic argument that we could consider with greater seriousness?

 

Not really. I like my ridiculous scenarios.

[mimartin]

if it were only in genuinely reasonable cases, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.

I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.[/Quote]So who would you want deciding what is considered reasonable?

[Pho3nix]

One question I have to ask as well is, why do so many people support the idea of life? what is so great about 'life'? I'll use an example to try to exemplify what I'm trying to say:

A woman who is a drug addict and HIV+ gets raped and becomes pregnant with an unwanted child. Which could face a) rejection by It's mother b) a medical problem for which there is no cure c) economic, social and most importantly personal problems. Now, I do not find any reason not to have an abortion in this quite far-fetched (though 'realistic') situation. Why would anyone want to bring a human being into this world when he/she would have to face tremendous difficulties?

 

In some ways I'd never want to bring another life into this world (technically I couldn't either because I'm male), the next generation will definitely suffer from global warming and in my opinion, increased religious fundamentalism. But this might be another topic.