Straight Dope Message Board

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

So, are you anti-abortion/pro-life in general? ...

Yes.

Originally Posted by RitterSport

... If so, it seems like this isn't the thread for you, since it was meant to be focused on late-term abortions. ...

I felt like my posts were providing useful information focused on late-term abortions.

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Yes.


I felt like my posts were providing useful information focused on late-term abortions.

Not really. I thought all of those reasons were pretty much OK and basically what I expected (and pretty close to what I had already linked to in the Wiki article). So, those are the reasons -- so what? And, your overall opinion on the subject made your answers nonsensical for someone whose concern was late-term abortions, like Typo Negative -- to avoid that, you'd want easy access to early term, so your "No" above threw me.

Anyway, if the OP's not coming back, I'm not either.

[ftg]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

Can you tell me who is advocating for abortions any time for any reason? It seems to me that the one who has trouble with absolutes is you.

Well, if you waited a bit AHunter3 gives you an example.

And secondly ... Good grief. I was explicitly not happy with absolutes. So yeah, I have trouble with them. No "sounds like" needed!

You seem to be getting too wound up here and not actually understanding things. Relax a bit.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

Not really. I thought all of those reasons were pretty much OK and basically what I expected (and pretty close to what I had already linked to in the Wiki article). So, those are the reasons -- so what?

Well, if you think the linked reasons are sufficient justification for a late-term abortion, then we are at an impasse. The point is that those reasons for a later-term abortion have nothing to do with fetal abnormalities or danger to the mother.

If a viable fetus is a child, and it is OK to abort it for reasons of convenience, that's certainly a position.

Regards,
Shodan

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Well, if you think the linked reasons are sufficient justification for a late-term abortion, then we are at an impasse. The point is that those reasons for a later-term abortion have nothing to do with fetal abnormalities or danger to the mother.

If a viable fetus is a child, and it is OK to abort it for reasons of convenience, that's certainly a position.

Regards,
Shodan

Given that the reasons linked here are for 16+ weeks, and not 40ish weeks, then it would only make sense to base your arguments on what people at 40ish weeks are saying. If you were to take what someone at 16.5 weeks said, and imply that it is something that someone at 40ish weeks said, then that would be an extremely dishonest form of debate. You should do your best to avoid conflating those different things in the future.

Now, if I it is "okay" to get an abortion at 16 weeks, but not at 17, and I find out I am pregnant at 10 weeks, think about if for a week, then try to get the procedure done, but due to regulations put in by "pro-life" advocates, I am delayed from being able to have the procedure until after 16 weeks, then any ethical issues with aborting that fetus are on those who forced it to be that late, not on the person who was forced to wait.

So, if you want to avoid those ethical issues, then stop creating them.

[Cheesesteak]

Like many of the pro-choicers, I'm not in favor of all late term abortions being legal. I think of it as the "Apartment Analogy".

There is someone in your apartment, you have the right to ask them to leave, you have the right to have the Sheriff show up and make them leave, even if they are physically incapable of living when outside your apartment. What you do not have the right to do is demand that the Sheriff shove them out a 10th story window, when they could have lived if you let them out the door.

[HurricaneDitka]

I don't think abortions for reasons of convenience prior to 16 weeks are "okay" either.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I don't think abortions for reasons of convenience prior to 16 weeks are "okay" either.

Which types of abortions do you think don't fit into this category?

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Which types of abortions do you think don't fit into this category?

For starters, the aforementioned fraction that are sought for "reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment"

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Given that the reasons linked here are for 16+ weeks, and not 40ish weeks, then it would only make sense to base your arguments on what people at 40ish weeks are saying. If you were to take what someone at 16.5 weeks said, and imply that it is something that someone at 40ish weeks said, then that would be an extremely dishonest form of debate. You should do your best to avoid conflating those different things in the future.

See posts 30, 42, and 44.

You should do your best to keep up with a thread as it develops.

Regards,
Shodan

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I don't think abortions for reasons of convenience prior to 16 weeks are "okay" either.

See, that's the kind of honesty I can respect. If you don't think that abortions are "okay" at any time, that your opinion should override that of the people actually involved int he decision, then, while I disagree with your opinion, I appreciate it when people are forthright about it.

It is when they claim that it is only about late term abortion, then conflate that with mid term abortion, while simultaneously making it harder to get an abortion prior to 16 weeks that I find anti-choices to be at their most dishonest.

Though, at least even they are not as dishonest as the ones who claim the restrictions and unnecessary procedures like vaginal ultrasounds is for the benefit of the woman.

I greatly appreciate it when someone can just come out and say that they are against women having the right to choose what happens to their body, that they should get to be the deciders of what other people do.

Originally Posted by Shodan

See posts 30, 42, and 44.

You should do your best to keep up with a thread as it develops.

Regards,
Shodan

Yep, those were the posts I was talking about. The ones talking about 16-20 weeks, while what you are talking about is 40ish weeks. It would be very dishonest to take the statements from those posts, and then imply that they are the statements made by women in their third term, or even in their final week.

While I appreciate you for pointing out the post #'s that confirm what I said, it was unnecessary.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

... anti-choices ...

This label is no more conducive to discussion than "anti-life" would be.

[kanicbird]

IMHO as long as the baby is inside the woman it's hers and her decision (by nature of where God put it in the design plan) - the woman has the right to decide the child's rights and status, but if that child comes out alive, it deserves the common human rights of the land, including medical attention and child protection services.

Now if during a abortion the child is born and injured in the process that's where it gets sticky. I would say that the child must show ability to thrive.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

This label is no more conducive to discussion than "anti-life" would be.

seems to be a sticking point to you, but I mean, that's what it is, is it not, denying a woman a right to have a choice over bodily autonomy.

People against late term abortions, I can see are pro-life. They see what they think of as a viable human being in there, and they don't want that "little baby" to be terminated.



In that particular instance, that you have chosen to call out, I was talking about people who would use dishonest tactics to prevent someone from having access to a legal and safe abortion in the legal timeframe. That is dishonest and unethical, and it is, IMHO pretty close to evil. Anti-choice, in those circumstances, is entirely the correct descriptions.

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

...



Yep, those were the posts I was talking about. The ones talking about 16-20 weeks, while what you are talking about is 40ish weeks. It would be very dishonest to take the statements from those posts, and then imply that they are the statements made by women in their third term, or even in their final week.

While I appreciate you for pointing out the post #'s that confirm what I said, it was unnecessary.

Yeah, it was the same bait and switch he did in the GD thread about these abortion bills.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

Yeah, it was the same bait and switch he did in the GD thread about these abortion bills.

Glad you're back. I'm not sure who "he" refers to here, but the study that I linked to, by, AFAICT, a pro-choice / anti-life (nod to k9bfriender) organization, defines "later abortions" as 20+ weeks. The thread title uses the phrase "late-term abortions", and as I noted in post #44, the definition for that is somewhat fluid, but generally seems to fall around 20 weeks. What do you see as the "bait and switch"?

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Glad you're back. I'm not sure who "he" refers to here, but the study that I linked to, by, AFAICT, a pro-choice / anti-life (nod to k9bfriender) organization, defines "later abortions" as 20+ weeks. The thread title uses the phrase "late-term abortions", and as I noted in post #44, the definition for that is somewhat fluid, but generally seems to fall around 20 weeks. What do you see as the "bait and switch"?

"He" refers to Shodan, who switches from "late term abortion", meaning 16+ weeks, to aborting viable fetuses (meaning 24 weeks at least, but really 26 or 27 weeks) in the same post. It annoyed k9befriender here and annoyed me in another thread.

See here: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...2#post21471352 from this thread (ETA: Post number 64 from this thread)

Anyway, I'm only back for that (and this response) since it really got on my nerves before. If Velocity is not interested enough to answer questions directed to him/her, I'm not that interested in defending his/her position.

BTW, I agree that anti-choice is not conducive to good conversation. I always use pro-life or anti-abortion. Similarly, I object when someone uses the term pro-abortion.

[The Tooth]

I do not approve of a government that forces women to bear children against their will. I fully support the right of women to make decisions with which I may not agree. "I don't like it!" isn't a good reason to make something illegal.

[HurricaneDitka]

We make shitloads of stuff illegal primarily because we, as a society, decide we don't like it.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Glad you're back. I'm not sure who "he" refers to here, but the study that I linked to, by, AFAICT, a pro-choice / anti-life (nod to k9bfriender) organization, defines "later abortions" as 20+ weeks. The thread title uses the phrase "late-term abortions", and as I noted in post #44, the definition for that is somewhat fluid, but generally seems to fall around 20 weeks. What do you see as the "bait and switch"?

FTR there are, in fact, clinics in New York that do abortions in or after the 27th week.

We provide assistance to women in New York with late term abortions, third trimester abortions, abortion after 27 weeks, maternal indication abortions, fetal indication abortions, and birth control.

Cite. "Late-term abortion", as you mentioned, is a fuzzy term, for various reasons, some of which might be honorable.

Regards,
Shodan

[The Tooth]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

We make shitloads of stuff illegal primarily because we, as a society, decide we don't like it.

We primarily don't.

Making you feel better is not a good reason to rob women of the freedom to bear children or not as they see fit. The price they pay if you get your way is greater than the price you pay if they get theirs. They'll be forced to have children against their will; you'll just get upset then go about your life.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by The Tooth

We primarily don't.

Making you feel better is not a good reason to rob women of the freedom to bear children or not as they see fit. The price they pay if you get your way is greater than the price you pay if they get theirs. They'll be forced to have children against their will; you'll just get upset then go about your life.

I'm not the one primarily "paying the price" if I don't get my way. I'm well aware of this. The woman isn't either.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

BTW, I agree that anti-choice is not conducive to good conversation. I always use pro-life or anti-abortion. Similarly, I object when someone uses the term pro-abortion.

I agree when we are talking about policy positions, however, if someone is using deceptive tactics to prevent a woman from being able to exercise her legal choice, then I do consider that to be anti-choice, which is how I used the term the first time.

I wonder if with HD's "nod" to me, if he is claiming that the pro-choice organization that he refers to is using dishonest tactics to trick people into having abortions.

If so, that is dishonest, and can accurately be described as anti-life. I will join in on condemning that.

If not, then he entirely misunderstands that I am referring to dishonest tactics, even though I told him that I am referring to dishonest tactics. Not sure how to make that more clear.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

FTR there are, in fact, clinics in New York that do abortions in or after the 27th week.

On demand?

Cite. "Late-term abortion", as you mentioned, is a fuzzy term, for various reasons, some of which might be honorable.

Since it is a fuzzy term, it would make the most sense to try to use clear and concise timeframes that you are talking about, rather than lumping in everyone at 16-20 weeks in with everyone up to 40. To do otherwise would create ambiguity as to what we are talking about, and could lead to the implication that there are women in their last week of pregnancy who are having the same issues as a woman in her 17th.

We wouldn't want that.

[The Tooth]

I'm not the one primarily "paying the price" if I don't get my way. I'm well aware of this. The woman isn't either

That's, like, your opinion, man. I don't see why that should outweigh the opinion of the woman faced with the decision, though.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by The Tooth

That's, like, your opinion, man. ...

Yes, and here we are in IMHO. How appropriate.

Originally Posted by The Tooth

... I don't see why that should outweigh the opinion of the woman faced with the decision, though.

I know you don't see it. I see another life at play in this equation, one that is too often ignored. That outweighs inconveniences.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by The Tooth

That's, like, your opinion, man. I don't see why that should outweigh the opinion of the woman faced with the decision, though.

If you are concerned that women are not smart enough or capable enough or have enough agency to make a decision like that for themselves, then you could very well feel that substituting your opinion for theirs, and forcing them to conform to your opinion, is actually in their best interests.

[HurricaneDitka]

It's the "for themselves" part that concerns me. It's not their best interest that I'm after. It's the child's.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

It's the "for themselves" part that concerns me. It's not their best interest that I'm after. It's the child's.

And that interest ends the moment the child breathes on its own?

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

And that interest ends the moment the child breathes on its own?

Not at all. I'm generally opposed to people who would want to terminate the lives of recently-born now-breathing-on-their-own children too. Again, not because it benefits me in any particular way, but because I think killing innocent children is morally reprehensible.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Not at all. I'm generally opposed to people who would want to terminate the lives of recently-born now-breathing-on-their-own children too. Again, not because it benefits me in any particular way, but because I think killing innocent children is morally reprehensible.

As do I. Yay. But, then I also find neglecting the health and education of a child to be morally reprehensible, especially if that child exists because you insisted that it should exist. I also find that neglecting pre-natal care for a pregnancy to be rather deplorable.

But, those are also positions that many in the "pro-life" crowd hold.

To paraphrase: "I demand you have that baby, but I don't want any part of it."

[The Tooth]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

It's the "for themselves" part that concerns me. It's not their best interest that I'm after. It's the child's.

Preserving a woman's freedom to bear children or not outweighs whatever it is you're after.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by The Tooth

Preserving a woman's freedom to bear children or not outweighs whatever it is you're after.

I disagree. I think the child's life outweighs the inconvenience the pregnancy may cause the mother, at least in most cases.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I disagree. I think the child's life outweighs the inconvenience the pregnancy may cause the mother, at least in most cases.

"Inconvenience"? I don't think you(nor I) am in the position to be labeling what women go through as a mere "inconvenience".

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

"Inconvenience"? I don't think you(nor I) am in the position to be labeling what women go through as a mere "inconvenience".

I think I'm free to label it however I feel. You may not agree with my description, but I don't subscribe to the idea that I'm not allowed to hold an opinion on the matter, or voice it, simply because I'm a man.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I think I'm free to label it however I feel. You may not agree with my description, but I don't subscribe to the idea that I'm not allowed to hold an opinion on the matter, or voice it, simply because I'm a man.

Then I hope you don't mind if I retain the right to disagree with your opinion, and not just let it pass when your opinion seems to belittle those who go through pregnancy.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Then I hope you don't mind if I retain the right to disagree with your opinion...

Not in the slightest.

I think pregnancies vary widely in ... what's the right word here ... discomfort? severity? difficulty? On the one hand, I'm told that some women aren't even aware they are pregnant until rather late in the process. OTOH, some women suffer serious health consequences and are acutely aware of it. It's estimated that hundreds of women die each year from pregnancy-related causes.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I disagree. I think the child's life outweighs the inconvenience the pregnancy may cause the mother, at least in most cases.

How consistent are we when if comes to the life of a child. For instance, if a child is not a legal US resident, but comes here as a refugee anyway, do you think the life of that child outweighs the inconvenience of letting that child stay in the United States?

If you don't think that you can make a consistent principle between your belief that the life of a child is sacred when it is involved with immigration, do you think that the life of a child outweighs your inconvenience of having to pay taxes for that child's healthcare and education?

That may be a bit much to ask too, as demanding that someone have a child is not the same as taking responsibility for it, but since we are putting the life of the child over that of the wishes of the parents, does that mean that we can force vaccinations over the objections of the parents, including "religious" objections?

And speaking of religious objections, since the life of a child is insignificant compared to its immortal sol, since we are overriding parental decision in what is in the best interest of the child, should we restrict religious education to adults, and make it illegal to attempt to indoctrinate a child in theocracy before they are able to make adult rational decisions?

Exactly how much interference are we willing to make in the lives of families "for the good of the child", and exactly how much of an inconvenience in the form of taxes are *you* willing to incur in order to protect these children that you hold so dear?

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

... Exactly how much interference are we willing to make in the lives of families "for the good of the child", and exactly how much of an inconvenience in the form of taxes are *you* willing to incur in order to protect these children that you hold so dear?

Ahhh, I see you did indeed figure out how paraphrasing via quotes works. Wonderful!

I think we already found a point of agreement when it comes to actions taken to terminate the lives of children (see post #81). I don't particularly mind having (and paying for) a police force charged with enforcing laws against this. I hope and suspect you'd also join me in holding a rather dim view of those who neglect or abuse children. We might disagree over how much of their college education society should be obligated to pay for. There's obviously a lot of gray area on the spectrum between those two bookends.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Ahhh, I see you did indeed figure out how paraphrasing via quotes works. Wonderful!

No, those were actually "scare quotes", and it was my own words, not attributed or attributable to anyone else. Paraphrasing with quotes is still a poor practice.

I think we already found a point of agreement when it comes to actions taken to terminate the lives of children (see post #81).

Right we agree that a healthy baby that has been born should not be killed.

I don't particularly mind having (and paying for) a police force charged with enforcing laws against this.

"This", being against infanticide? Do we not have that already? I was at a friend's last night, and he was watching a police procedural where the entire plot was over the disappearance and eventual death of an infant. Please don't tell me that that is only on TV that we investigate and prosecute such crimes.

I hope and suspect you'd also join me in holding a rather dim view of those who neglect or abuse children.

Sure, but we may have different views of what is neglect or abuse.

There are some who think that sticking a needle in your child's arm is abuse, and there are others who think that leaving your child susceptible to dangerous and deadly diseases is abuse.

I was raised that it was child abuse to not take your child to church and teach them the ways of God and Jesus. As an adult, I feel that it is child abuse to do so, and that children should be given a chance to understand the real world before being introduced to the next.

As a society, I feel that we collectively abuse children if we only allow them to receive the medical care and education that their parents can provide, if what they can provide is not adequate.

As a country, I feel that we abuse children when we seperate them from their parents because they were fleeing from violence and poverty.

I take a dim view of all that, do you?

We might disagree over how much of their college education society should be obligated to pay for.

Not just college, but primary education as well. Every person I know personally who is pro-life votes against school levies every single time and complains constantly about it. Do you support your local schools?

There's obviously a lot of gray area on the spectrum between those two bookends.

Yeah, it's made up of pretty much the bulk of humanity. I think that we would only agree maybe 10% on what is definitely "evil", and maybe 10% on what is definitely "good". The rest is all somewhere in between.

[HurricaneDitka]

You seem to be trying very hard to derail this thread with discussions about illegal immigration, vaccines, religious freedom, and / or welfare programs. Those are not the topic here. If you'd like to start another GD thread about any of those and are interested, I could certainly chime in and outline my views on any of those topics, but not here.

ETA: I'm not telling you that you can't (I'm obviously not a mod), I'm just explaining why I'm ignoring those questions.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Ahhh, I see you did indeed figure out how paraphrasing via quotes works. Wonderful!

I think we already found a point of agreement when it comes to actions taken to terminate the lives of children (see post #81). I don't particularly mind having (and paying for) a police force charged with enforcing laws against this. I hope and suspect you'd also join me in holding a rather dim view of those who neglect or abuse children. We might disagree over how much of their college education society should be obligated to pay for. There's obviously a lot of gray area on the spectrum between those two bookends.

The fact that you oppose all abortions drains these arguments of weight - you oppose abortion before the point where there's even a child to kill, or even before the point it can properly be called a living being. This casts into doubt that child abuse is the issue here, since you're willing to call non-child things "children" just so you can pretend that child abuse is what's going on. This doubt is increased by the fact that it's long been the standard conservative position to violently oppose abortion and then violently oppose any and every effort to support post-birth children and the mothers of such children.

If there was a magical device that could teleport a "child" (fetus, zygote, whatever) out of a womb without it being dead at the moment of its arrival outside, aside from making lots of women very happy, would you see it as a solution to the abortion dilemma? The woman extracts the living mass of tissue, leaves it on a tray, and walks away?

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by begbert2

... the point where there's even a child to kill, or even before the point it can properly be called a living being. ...

Just for my own edification, in your view when are these two points?

Originally Posted by begbert2

... If there was a magical device that could teleport a "child" (fetus, zygote, whatever) out of a womb without it being dead at the moment of its arrival outside, aside from making lots of women very happy, would you see it as a solution to the abortion dilemma? The woman extracts the living mass of tissue, leaves it on a tray, and walks away?

Presumably we're teleporting it into some sort of incubator that will allow it to continue to live and grow, right? If so, then yes, I'd see it as a solution to the abortion dilemma in that I'd support the use of this magical device and the outlawing of abortion. Did I understand your question correctly? Or are you proposing that in place of chemicals / dismemberment / whatever we'd use this magical device as an alternative means to terminate the "child" (fetus, zygote, whatever)'s life and wondering if I'd find that acceptable, presumably because the actual death occurs "on a tray" outside of the womb? If that's the question, that's a definite "no". Did at least one of those answer your question?

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Just for my own edification, in your view when are these two points?

I'm of the opinion that I don't know enough about the medical science to know these points to any specific degree, but in an ideal world they would be determined by milestones, not time. As a rough, not-a-doctor start, I'd say a decent marker for being a living being is when it has a distinct heartbeat from the mother (marking it as being its own entity rather than a growth on the mother), and a decent marker for when it's a child is when it has achieved demonstrable sentience.

I'm not sufficiently well-read enough to say when these milestones are likely to occur, on average, but I'm pretty sure they don't happen in the first week.

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Presumably we're teleporting it into some sort of incubator that will allow it to continue to live and grow, right? If so, then yes, I'd see it as a solution to the abortion dilemma in that I'd support the use of this magical device and the outlawing of abortion. Did I understand your question correctly? Or are you proposing that in place of chemicals / dismemberment / whatever we'd use this magical device as an alternative means to terminate the "child" (fetus, zygote, whatever)'s life and wondering if I'd find that acceptable, presumably because the actual death occurs "on a tray" outside of the womb? If that's the question, that's a definite "no". Did at least one of those answer your question?

Whose responsibility is it to provide and pay for the incubator? And what if there is no incubator that exists that can enable the survival and growth of the cell-clump or whatever it is at week 2? Or 4? Or week 16?

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

You seem to be trying very hard to derail this thread with discussions about illegal immigration, vaccines, religious freedom, and / or welfare programs. Those are not the topic here. If you'd like to start another GD thread about any of those and are interested, I could certainly chime in and outline my views on any of those topics, but not here.

ETA: I'm not telling you that you can't (I'm obviously not a mod), I'm just explaining why I'm ignoring those questions.

It's not a derail at all. You are saying that you are concerned for the welfare of the child, and that is why you are willing to use the criminal justice and law enforcement system to have your preferences enforced.

Just seeing what other aspects that you are willing to use the power of the government to enforce your view of what is in the best interests of the child. If this is the only thing that you would ask the government to compel of parents, but you feel that the govt should keep its hands off of other child raising particulars, then your argument has no consistency, and falls apart, leaving the fig leaf of "best interests of the child" naked and bare.

If you choose to ignore questions that would shore up the consistency of your argument, that is your choice, just remember that you made that choice when your arguments are not taken seriously.

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by begbert2

I'm of the opinion that I don't know enough about the medical science to know these points to any specific degree, but in an ideal world they would be determined by milestones, not time. As a rough, not-a-doctor start, I'd say a decent marker for being a living being is when it has a distinct heartbeat from the mother (marking it as being its own entity rather than a growth on the mother), and a decent marker for when it's a child is when it has achieved demonstrable sentience.

I'm not sufficiently well-read enough to say when these milestones are likely to occur, on average, but I'm pretty sure they don't happen in the first week.

There are many different milestones, but if the clump of cells hasn't even differentiated, it's not a child.

If it hasn't developed a nervous system, it's not only not sentient, it's not even aware. If it hasn't developed differentiation in brain tissue, then it's not really even human yet.

Whose responsibility is it to provide and pay for the incubator? And what if there is no incubator that exists that can enable the survival and growth of the cell-clump or whatever it is at week 2? Or 4? Or week 16?

Should we have that technology, I will be happy to have my tax dollars go towards such procedures. For my opinion, I would say that if it's not viable in the incubator, it's not viable at all. I will never try to say that my opinion should override that of the person who actually is carrying the fetus. If it can't go to the incubator till 12 weeks, and it is 11.5, I'm all for her terminating it, if that is her desire.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by begbert2

I'm of the opinion that I don't know enough about the medical science to know these points to any specific degree, but in an ideal world they would be determined by milestones, not time. As a rough, not-a-doctor start, I'd say a decent marker for being a living being is when it has a distinct heartbeat from the mother (marking it as being its own entity rather than a growth on the mother), and a decent marker for when it's a child is when it has achieved demonstrable sentience.

I'm not sufficiently well-read enough to say when these milestones are likely to occur, on average, but I'm pretty sure they don't happen in the first week. ...

Thanks for sharing. I suspect you're right (about the first week). I am not a doctor either, but my understanding is that a fetal heartbeat can usually be first detected via a transvaginal ultrasound at around 5.5-6.5 weeks and via fetal Doppler around 8-10 weeks. I suspect there's more vigorous debate about what constitutes "demonstrable sentience", but I do appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Originally Posted by begbert2

... Whose responsibility is it to provide and pay for the incubator? And what if there is no incubator that exists that can enable the survival and growth of the cell-clump or whatever it is at week 2? Or 4? Or week 16?

If such a magical device existed and the only impediment was cost, I'd support taxpayer funding being used to pay for the magical devices and / or incubators. Back here in the world lacking such magical devices, I don't generally support killing the "cell-clump or whatever", and find that my revulsion at the idea grows more severe the later into the pregnancy the termination occurs.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Thanks for sharing. I suspect you're right (about the first week). I am not a doctor either, but my understanding is that a fetal heartbeat can usually be first detected via a transvaginal ultrasound at around 5.5-6.5 weeks and via fetal Doppler around 8-10 weeks. I suspect there's more vigorous debate about what constitutes "demonstrable sentience", but I do appreciate hearing your thoughts.


If such a magical device existed and the only impediment was cost, I'd support taxpayer funding being used to pay for the magical devices and / or incubators. Back here in the world lacking such magical devices, I don't generally support killing the "cell-clump or whatever", and find that my revulsion at the idea grows more severe the later into the pregnancy the termination occurs.

My revulsion doesn't start until I'm convinced the thing is both a living entity and sentient - prior to that it's exactly morally equivalent to removing an appendix. After that I get less happy about terminating - it's at this point I'd like it extracted alive - except that I know that the current status of child care is to just let the thing languish unloved in the system, so there's little point. It just becomes a more unfortunate situation overall, if nobody wants it - neither the mother nor her conservative overlords.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by begbert2

My revulsion doesn't start until I'm convinced the thing is both a living entity and sentient - prior to that it's exactly morally equivalent to removing an appendix. After that I get less happy about terminating - it's at this point I'd like it extracted alive ...

Understanding that I'm asking for a layman's opinion, which milestones would you consider "demonstrable sentience"?

Originally Posted by begbert2

... except that I know that the current status of child care is to just let the thing languish unloved in the system, so there's little point. It just becomes a more unfortunate situation overall, if nobody wants it - neither the mother nor her conservative overlords.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth with this next question, I'm just trying to explore your opinions on the matter a bit: Does this feeling extend to children after birth that are / would be put up for adoption? Do you feel it's better / would almost be better if they were never born?

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Understanding that I'm asking for a layman's opinion, which milestones would you consider "demonstrable sentience"?

Reactions to stimulus that indicate more than just a basic nervous system response. As layman that's about all I can say.

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I don't mean to put words in your mouth with this next question, I'm just trying to explore your opinions on the matter a bit: Does this feeling extend to children after birth that are / would be put up for adoption? Do you feel it's better / would almost be better if they were never born?

Better for them or for society? I'm not sure that painless death is itself a bad thing, except for the impact it has on the people who observe it and/or who will miss the deceased. If there's nobody to miss them, well, if there were nobody to miss me or find my body, there are worse things that could happen to me than painless death. (Making the rather bold presumption that the death is painless and unanticipated, mind you.)

Making the rather tenuous presumption that we shouldn't kill unwanted viable fetuses, the question becomes what we're willing to do to keep viable children alive, for that period between when they become sentient and when we can extract them alive. If I had to enslave, imprison, or torture somebody to keep myself alive, I'm pretty sure that it would be immoral for me to do so. Which means there's a scale. Where does pregnancy fall on it - and how inconvenient or dangerous does a pregnancy have to be? I've seen women on several month's bedrest. Imprisonment?

Questions, questions, questions. One thing I am sure of, though - if we ever do advance the science of extraction and incubation to the point where every sentient fetus can be extracted and baked artificially, the cost of this must necessarily fall entirely on the society that mandates that it happen, in cases where the woman would choose to wash her hands of it all.