Abortion

[Pitchforkpat]

Hate to do it, but I haven't discussed this in a long time and I'd like to know what people think (though I'm sure it'll go down religious lines). It is a stealth issue this election since the make up of the Supreme Court may change decisively over the next term or two (I think).

In case you want to know. I used to be very much against it. Now I'm for it. I'll tell you why if the thread actually goes anywhere.


Pat

[faerie]

I think it depends mostly on how developed the fetus is. First trimester, okay... second trimester is pushing it... third trimester(partial birth abortion) is wrong no matter how you look at it.

[witchygirl]

I, personally, wouldn't get an abortion should I get pregnant, and I will not promote it; no one, however, has a right to tell another what to do with their body. The fetus is a parasite. It should be the woman's choice whether or not to keep it.

First of all, one can't make it illegal because 1) the fetus doesn't legally exist, so the mother is having her rights being limited for the sake of a legally "imaginary" creature, 2) because you can't murder someone who is brain-dead; therefore, even if every other form is illegal, killing the fetus before it's brain functions would not be murder, 3) there really isn't a reason to stop it. Women have been having abortions ever since we evolved. Many animals have aborted their children in various ways. Not to be coldly logical and emotionless, but it makes sense to kill a fetus if the parents will be unable to provide a good life for it.

There is also the reasoning of whether or not the mother was raped, how old she is, and her health which are also important.


Summary: I don't agree with it personally, but it should be legal.

[Pitchforkpat]

Witchy,

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here:

1) the fetus doesn't legally exist, so the mother is having her rights being limited for the sake of a legally "imaginary" creature, 2) because you can't murder someone who is brain-dead; therefore, even if every other form is illegal, killing the fetus before it's brain functions would not be murder, 3) there really isn't a reason to stop it.

1.
I’m not sure what you mean by doesn’t exist? Can you explain that further? Does a baby exist 5 minutes after birth? Does it exist 5 minutes before birth? It can’t be just one or the other, because there is NO difference in functioning between that time.

2.
Fatal brain functioning is quite measurable long before it is born. Even after birth the neural pathways are developing at the same rate they were before birth.

3.
I think even most pro choice physicians would put limits on when it is ok to abort. I think very few would abort during the ninth month of pregnancy.

I’d like to know what you think of these points.

[witchygirl]

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

1.
I’m not sure what you mean by doesn’t exist? Can you explain that further? Does a baby exist 5 minutes after birth? Does it exist 5 minutes before birth? It can’t be just one or the other, because there is NO difference in functioning between that time.

I mean that it doesn't have a birth certificate. Once it has one, then it is legally alive. My dad didn't get his birth certificate until a few days after his real birth, so he has two birthdays - his actual one, and his legal one. Granted that if a baby is killed before the parents make it's birth certificate, most would consider it murder, but one still can't make a law protecting something that legally doesn't exist yet.

2.Fatal brain functioning is quite measurable long before it is born. Even after birth the neural pathways are developing at the same rate they were before birth.

True, but there are early stages where the parasite doesn't even have a brain, much less a functioning one.

3.I think even most pro choice physicians would put limits on when it is ok to abort. I think very few would abort during the ninth month of pregnancy.

I agree that physicans SHOULD put limits on abortion. Ninth month (even seventh is a bit too far in my opinion), and partial birth abortions should be outlawed. There is no reason why someone should get a partial birth abortion or a ninth month abortion because if you ahve waited that long, you might was well wait a little longer and send it to the adoption agency.

But abortion, in general, is necessary and natural. There are some situations where abortion is the only logical choice - especially when it comes to the mothers health.

[Silmeudun]

I personally think it is wrong to get out of a mistake that way but at the same time I'd hate to put a child through a life unloved. Also if it isn't your fault aka rape or some such thing I think it's reasonable I guess. Fathers do rape their daughters at times and in such situations I believe it could be reasonable. But to quote a bumper sticker..."If you're against abortions, don't have one"

[ErgoSumnist]

Abortions bend the laws against killing without breaking them. Most feel that abortions can bend the ethics against killing without breaking them. From a legal stand-point, as long as it's not already legally acknowledged, you can kill it. Most just feel it unethical. You can kill him/her any time, but you'd have to live with yourself afterward. Laws should not be bent for ethics alone, though. Laws against killing keep the peace. Laws against disposing of an undesirable make some mad and some happy, but does little to keep peace.

[tachyon]

Originally Posted by witchygirl

I mean that it doesn't have a birth certificate. Once it has one, then it is legally alive. My dad didn't get his birth certificate until a few days after his real birth, so he has two birthdays - his actual one, and his legal one. Granted that if a baby is killed before the parents make it's birth certificate, most would consider it murder, but one still can't make a law protecting something that legally doesn't exist yet.

If you kill a baby born 30 seconds ago, you can be prosecuted for murder, birth certificate or no. And remember, that our nation is based on the belief that all people are "endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In other words, these rights are not given to people by the government, not by some piece of paper saying they're legally alive. The government merely recognizes these rights as already being theirs.

True, but there are early stages where the parasite doesn't even have a brain, much less a functioning one.

Most abortions are performed after the fetus has measurable brain waves. Would you support a law requiring that if brain activity has started, the fetus cannot be aborted?

[Kolriss]

Two points:

A friend of mine's little brother has dim memories from in the womb. I did question him as to the details, and they seem genuine.

And you might find this link interesting:
http://www.research.umbc.edu/~meliss.../postnatal.htm
Just for those who don't realise, it's a joke.

[0ddity]

Even if your friends little brother DID have memories from the womb, they would have had to have been from much past the latest abortion date. I don't think ANYONE should be able to make a decision about this except the woman who wants one.

[sweet water]

making abortion illegal would only kill more people..and i'll tell you why. women are going to have abortions regardless of whether it's legal or not. thing is..they'll have them in dirty little shacks with unpracticed 'doctors' charging obscene amounts. the methods for these illegal abortions are VERY dangerous... often including something along the lines of say.. a coat hanger... : shudder : countless women would die from said procedures. and i agree..

not to mention i think the very fact of someone deciding THEY have control over who does what to their own body is sick. there are some things that the government should just stay out of.

one of my favourite quotes : if you cut off my reproductive choice, can i cut off yours?

[airmikee]

Originally Posted by sweet water

one of my favourite quotes : if you cut off my reproductive choice, can i cut off yours?

Hahaha.. the very reason I can't take away a womans choice to do what she wants.. I love that quote.

The only thing the courts should have to do with abortion these days is when there is a dispute between the mother and the father. To go back to the way it was means to recreate the hell sweet water mentioned.. and I can gaurentee you that in this time era, we would make that hell a thousand times worse.

Long live the morals of others, others that are better than the rest of us. May their hatred of others live long..

[Pitchforkpat]

Tachyon,

And remember, that our nation is based on the belief that all people are "endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In other words, these rights are not given to people by the government, not by some piece of paper saying they're legally alive.

That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t really address the real crux of the matter which is when a foetus becomes a person. Is it when the baby comes out of the vaginal canal? I doubt it, because we have premature C sections. Is it whenever it breathes on its own? Better, but inadequate. Is it a person one hour before it comes out of the mother? One month?

It’s a very, very hard question, and deciding when a foetus actually becomes a person can easily be ridiculed. For example, it’s really crazy to say that it becomes a person when it enters the third trimester. That would mean something like, at midnight on a certain day, it is a person, but 5 minutes before, it wasn’t.

I’d like to hear more opinions on when it becomes a person.

[witchygirl]

Originally Posted by tachyon

If you kill a baby born 30 seconds ago, you can be prosecuted for murder, birth certificate or no. And remember, that our nation is based on the belief that all people are "endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In other words, these rights are not given to people by the government, not by some piece of paper saying they're legally alive. The government merely recognizes these rights as already being theirs.

I said that you can be tried for it - that's common sense. However, legally, you have to provide evidence that that baby exists. That is why birth certificates are used - to keep track of babies' families/etc, and to prove certain information about that person (age, birth date, etc) including that they exist.

Most abortions are performed after the fetus has measurable brain waves. Would you support a law requiring that if brain activity has started, the fetus cannot be aborted?

I'm not sure, but probably not. I would support certain laws that limit aborton, yes, but it would be more like anti-partial birth, and (possibly 6th) 7th/8th/9th month abortions.

[Pitchforkpat]

Witchy,

I would support certain laws that limit aborton, yes, but it would be more like anti-partial birth, and (possibly 6th) 7th/8th/9th month abortions.

That's intersting. I'm curious as to why you would say that concerning a "parasite" that "doesn't exist". Just curious and playing devil's advocate again.