This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I was referring to the fetus being removed as per the mothers decision, sorry if that wasn't clear. therefore there is no abnormality and my point stands. Even if the fetus was naturally birthed at 21 weeks, that does not automatically mean there is something wrong with it, most like likely it is a medical issue with the mother that would cause it to happen, rather than the fetus itself.
My response to this has to be in context of your following statement:
My personal stance is it is completely up to the mother when the abortion should/should not be able to happen, the reason I used 5 months is because that is approximately 21 weeks, and that was a number you had quoted previously.
I can't say when a fetus becomes a person, but I can say that the mother's opinion should matter more than anyone else's, as she is the one carrying the fetus, and until the 9 month gestation period is over, and baby is born, I consider it to be an extension of her body. Outlined by the reasons I posted above.
So if a mother decides that in the minute before birth, she wants to kill the baby, you're saying that action would be perfectly fine in your mind, as it's purely an extension of her body?
By the same token, would you suggest that an event that kills a 9-month pregnant woman on her way to the hospital should be regarded as only taking one life, and not two?
Edit: I should make it clear that my questions aren't criticism of your view, but only seeking acknowledgement of your position. I respect the fact that you're willing to draw the line somewhere.
I keep trying to reply to things here, but I can't seem to quite find the right words. It really just confuses me how cavalier and assumptive people seem to be about fetuses. People who are scientific and analytic about any other topic. I really don't know how to formulate an argument against that.
I hope that wasn't aimed at me?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
I keep trying to reply to things here, but I can't seem to quite find the right words. It really just confuses me how cavalier and assumptive people seem to be about fetuses. People who are scientific and analytic about any other topic. I really don't know how to formulate an argument against that. There is clearly a direct causal relationship between a fetus and a baby, and it's abundantly
un-
clear where the objective change is. Shouldn't that be cause enough get some real scientific answers before throwing caution to the wind and making it perfectly legal to kill a fetus?I agree wholeheartedly.
I think exceptions can and should be made in the case of rape or danger to the mother, but in those cases the abortion should be performed as quickly as possible to try and get the fetus/embryo as early as they can in the development.
I don't know what a fetus becomes a person, but I think we should really try to get that cleared up before we just make it okay to kill them.
Edit: In addition, I don't understand how a person can call a fetus " just a collection of cells."
All multicellural organisms are "collections of cells" per definition. I am a collection of cells, a newborn is a collection of cells, and a three-week old embryo is a collection of cells.
It might be appropriate to call an embryo is "just a a collection of cells," if it doesn't resemble a baby or even a human at all.
this
five-week old embryo certainly doesn't look like a person, and I doubt it has much neurological or cognitive function, either. I would not consider it a baby or a person.
This
, however, is a fetus at 18 weeks. It has a face, fingers, toes, and a large brain-to-body size ratio. I don't know if that's a person, but I can't dismiss it as "just a collection of cells."
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I hope that wasn't aimed at me?
No, not at all.
Post by
Ksero
I was referring to the fetus being removed as per the mothers decision, sorry if that wasn't clear. therefore there is no abnormality and my point stands. Even if the fetus was naturally birthed at 21 weeks, that does not automatically mean there is something wrong with it, most like likely it is a medical issue with the mother that would cause it to happen, rather than the fetus itself.
My response to this has to be in context of your following statement:
My personal stance is it is completely up to the mother when the abortion should/should not be able to happen, the reason I used 5 months is because that is approximately 21 weeks, and that was a number you had quoted previously.
I can't say when a fetus becomes a person, but I can say that the mother's opinion should matter more than anyone else's, as she is the one carrying the fetus, and until the 9 month gestation period is over, and baby is born, I consider it to be an extension of her body. Outlined by the reasons I posted above.
So if a mother decides that in the minute before birth, she wants to kill the baby, you're saying that action would be perfectly fine in your mind, as it's purely an extension of her body?
By the same token, would you suggest that an event that kills a 9-month pregnant woman on her way to the hospital should be regarded as only taking one life, and not two?
Edit: I should make it clear that my questions aren't criticism of your view, but only seeking acknowledgement of your position. I respect the fact that you're willing to draw the line somewhere.
I'd like to revise my statement, I see no problem with abortion when there are no other options for the mother to pursue, if the fetus can be removed and have a chance of surviving I would always favor that option. It really comes down to the fact that there is no reason to get an abortion anywhere near 9 months, on than if the mothers' life is at risk, even then in most cases the the fetus could be removed and put into an incubator, and have a extremely high chance of survival. Even if the mother didn't want it, it could be put up for adoption.
As to your second point, I think I have partially answered it in the paragraph above, but to elaborate, I would be sad that something so close to life was lost, something that had almost reached it's potential. It would sadden me just as much as if a woman was driving home with her newborn and both were killed.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I see no problem with abortion when there are no other options for the mother to pursue
What do you mean by 'no other options'?
Post by
Ksero
I see no problem with abortion when there are no other options for the mother to pursue
What do you mean by 'no other options'?
Due to the circumstances of the mothers life she is not able to carry the baby full term and the fetus is not viable to be put in an incubator/will not survive even if it is.
Post by
Squishalot
circumstances of the mothers life she is not able to carry the baby full term
That's a very subjective sort of statement... If you were to codify it in law, how would you clarify that? Or would it be available for any mother to provide any reason and it would be accepted without question?
Post by
Ksero
it would include but not be limited to, medical reasons, unplanned pregnancy, rape, age of the mother, financial/living situation that would be bad for a child to grow up in. I can't list everything, but this is a general outline of the reasons that I would personally accept.
heading to bed for the night, I will respond tomorrow.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
...
You have demonstrated nothing. Claiming that the viability of a fetus determines its right to life is not a scientific claim. That is an arbitrary moral standard.
Post by
Skreeran
I think viability is a really shaky platform to stand on, though. There are some naturally born babies that can't survive without medical equipment, but I would still consider then babies.
And how about in the future? If fetuses become people when they are viable, then was a 24 week old fetus that wasn't viable in 1906 not a person? Or was it just less of a person than a 24 week old fetus today? A 20 week old fetus isn't considered a person today, but will it be in the future if we develop technology to make them viable?
That's the thing, most Pro-Life fellows don't really consider viability to be what makes a person a person. I personally don't know at which point a fetus becomes a person. I would consider a newborn baby a person, and I don't believe that it only becomes a person once it's born. Likewise, I would
not
consider a zygote or an embryo a person, because I don't believe in a soul and thus don't believe that personhood begins at conception.
But I feel that the ability to survive outside of a specialized environment (the womb) is not really the definition of a person. There are lots of people--terminally ill people, for example--who are incapable of surviving outside of a specialized environment. I think the issue is consciousness, cognition, and personhood, not the arbitrary question of whether or not they can survive outside the womb.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Viability and degree of disability are the two criteria that are used to arrive at 24 weeks. Some fetuses can survive at an earlier age but will have too many disabilities making the quality of life really poor.
How else can you decide given that no abortions is not a realistic option? Before the fetus becomes viable seems the logical choice.
Viability is a criteria for whether or not a woman should be able to remove a fetus from her body if she doesn't want to carry it to term. That's logical. But there is no logical connection between the viability of a fetus and whether it's okay to kill it. There is no inherent logic to that as you seem to think. That would require an ethical and scientific demonstration that has not be provided.
Abortion was legalised in the UK because the consequences of women using backstreet abortion "clinics" or attempting to abort by themselves was not what a civilised society should be putting up with.
Civilized society shouldn't be putting up with backstreet murders and muggings either, but that doesn't mean we go around legitimizing and legalizing murder and theft. That's a poor, poor argument for legalizing anything.
Post by
Gone
Abortion was legalised in the UK because the consequences of women using backstreet abortion "clinics" or attempting to abort by themselves was not what a civilised society should be putting up with.
Civilized society shouldn't be putting up with backstreet murders and muggings either, but that doesn't mean we go around legitimizing and legalizing murder and theft. That's a poor, poor argument for legalizing anything.
Sitting back and fiddling while Rome burns, when there is an obvious problem that can be alleviated, is not something that society should be doing.
Not to go all Goodwin here, but that's what the Nazis said when they started herding minorities into camps.
Post by
Squishalot
it would include but not be limited to, medical reasons, unplanned pregnancy, rape, age of the mother, financial/living situation that would be bad for a child to grow up in. I can't list everything, but this is a general outline of the reasons that I would personally accept.
That seems like it's pretty much open to any reason a mother can provide. You can use unplanned pregnancy as a reason for anything.
The answer is the same in that I don't consider a fetus to be much more than a collection of cells
until it becomes viable
. Once it is viable then it is a different story.
A fetus doesn't become a child
until it is born
.
I hope you'll forgive me for saying that these appear quite contradictory.
Post by
Ksero
it would include but not be limited to, medical reasons, unplanned pregnancy, rape, age of the mother, financial/living situation that would be bad for a child to grow up in. I can't list everything, but this is a general outline of the reasons that I would personally accept.
That seems like it's pretty much open to any reason a mother can provide. You can use unplanned pregnancy as a reason for anything.
I should said have accidental pregnancy instead of unplanned, ie. when the condom breaks, or birth control fails, if someone is taking precautions to try to reduce the chances of pregnancy, in the event those precautions fail i believe that abortion is a viable option. Personally, I would not like to see some one using abortion as a contraceptive if they have taken no precautions to prevent pregnancy the first place.
Post by
Squishalot
I still think it's very subjective. Condom breakage is easy to lie about. Financial / living situation is incredibly subjective. Anything that could be disagreed about ("they have plenty of money, they can't claim they can't afford it") would make fairly poor grounds for a law being used to determine abortion legitimacy. It still doesn't address the idea that treating it as a case of 'part of mother until birth' allows a mother to terminate the foetus for any of the reasons that you've mentioned up until the point of childbirth.
Post by
Ksero
I still think it's very subjective. Condom breakage is easy to lie about. Financial / living situation is incredibly subjective. Anything that could be disagreed about ("they have plenty of money, they can't claim they can't afford it") would make fairly poor grounds for a law being used to determine abortion legitimacy. It still doesn't address the idea that treating it as a case of 'part of mother until birth' allows a mother to terminate the foetus for any of the reasons that you've mentioned up until the point of childbirth.
I don't get how you can't see the connection, maybe this will help
The supreme court of Canada noted"orcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations" and that the law "asserts that the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state" were essentially a breach of the woman's right to security of the person, which is guaranteed under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canada abortion laws wikpedia
IN there final decision the court stated
"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."
Post by
Squishalot
I don't get how you can't see the connection, maybe this will help
It's not that I don't see there's a connection, sorry if I'm not clear enough. I'm trying to address the idea that:
I would be sad that something so close to life was lost, something that had almost reached it's potential.
The concept of justifying an abortion, presumably, would be made early on, in the first couple of trimesters, rather than a few weeks before due date.
Anyway, if I can be clear in terms of understand your position:
1. You believe that people should be able to terminate their unborn children at any stage of development up to childbirth
2. These people who terminate their unborn children would need to provide justification, but that justification would be sufficiently broad enough so as not to deny abortion to a willing woman
3. Despite believing that people who are 8.5 months pregnant should have the right to abort their unborn child, you would be not be happy at the idea that the unborn child wasn't going to be born
4. You believe that as the unborn child is a technical part of the mother at that point in time, it is not considered a separate 'person' from a legal perspective, and as such, its death would not represent murder, manslaughter, or any other killing of a person, irrespective of whether it arose as a result of abortion, accidental circumstances or intent
Is that a fair enough summary?
Post by
Ksero
I don't get how you can't see the connection, maybe this will help
It's not that I don't see there's a connection, sorry if I'm not clear enough. I'm trying to address the idea that:
I would be sad that something so close to life was lost, something that had almost reached it's potential.
The concept of justifying an abortion, presumably, would be made early on, in the first couple of trimesters, rather than a few weeks before due date.
Anyway, if I can be clear in terms of understand your position:
1. You believe that people should be able to terminate their unborn children at any stage of development up to childbirth
2. These people who terminate their unborn children would need to provide justification, but that justification would be sufficiently broad enough so as not to deny abortion to a willing woman
3. Despite believing that people who are 8.5 months pregnant should have the right to abort their unborn child, you would be not be happy at the idea that the unborn child wasn't going to be born
4. You believe that as the unborn child is a technical part of the mother at that point in time, it is not considered a separate 'person' from a legal perspective, and as such, its death would not represent murder, manslaughter, or any other killing of a person, irrespective of whether it arose as a result of abortion, accidental circumstances or intent
Is that a fair enough summary?
somewhat, I believe something got "lost in translation" so to speak, it's more like.
1. I believe woman should have the right to terminate their pregnancy, as long as there is nothing else that can be done, it's the last option on the list. If there was an option to take the fetus out of the mother and put it in an incubator to be put up for adoption, I would choose that every time.
2. You got this part right
3. I don't believe there is any reason, other than the mothers life is at risk, for a termination of pregnancy at 8.5 months. As I said before, if the fetus could be removed and kept alive, this would obviously be preferable. 21 weeks is when I would draw the line, that seems to be the general consensus of when a fetus can survive outside the womb (although with extreme care)
4. Although I still see the fetus as part of the mother at 8.5 months, this is a tricky question to answer, If someone decided to stab a pregnant mother in the gut, with the intention of killing the baby (and this has happened), I would charge him with murder, as his intent was to end the life, before it had even started.
Post by
Squishalot
If there was an option to take the fetus out of the mother and put it in an incubator to be put up for adoption, I would choose that every time.
Do you think that should that be put into abortion law? For example, would you mind if abortion beyond 5-6 months was codified as illegal, and any 'abortions' would instead need to be induced delivery instead? Because as it stands, with abortion being restricted for people past 5-6 months, that's exactly what would happen practically speaking.
I don't believe there is any reason, other than the mothers life is at risk, for a termination of pregnancy at 8.5 months.
What if their financial situation changed? Father lost his job, mother's company went into bankruptcy, parents divorced? You would be happy with those reasons being used at any earlier point in time. At what point are they no longer reasonable, assuming that there isn't an available incubator / emergency service to take on board a premature baby?
If someone decided to stab a pregnant mother in the gut, with the intention of killing the baby (and this has happened), I would charge him with murder, as his intent was to end the life, before it had even started.
How far through pregnancy do you think this should apply? 8.5 months is obviously a specifically chosen extreme case - how about 8 months, or 7 months (or 6, 5, 4, etc.)?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.