It’s not. But in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is no chance of the child’s survival in any event, so the choice you offer is non-existent.
I will answer, even though it isn’t addressed to me.
I contend that the fetus receives “contigent personhood” at the moment of viability outside the womb. At this point a woman no longer has the right to terminate unless her health is severely jeapordized. This is because the fetus could survive without her - the moment before it could not. Obviously this is very difficult to determine precisely, but medical science can guide us.
At birth the fetus becomes a fully-vested human being and receives full protection under the law. The difference between the moment after birth and before should be obvious - the ability to survive without biological support from the mother.
I intentionally snipped out the ectopic part of her post, and only kept the “survival of the mother” part. There are plenty of non-ectopic pregnancies, ones in which the baby could survive but the mother would die. These are the cases I would like addressed. I don’t see an easy way to reconcile full personhood at conception with allowing abortion to save the life of the mother unless you do somehow grant a higher priority to the mother.
Exactly. There is no brighter line than between (inside my body) / outside my body. *I * make the calls on what happens inside my body.
In the case of a tubal pregnancy the baby would not survive anyways. So why should the mother die as well?
Does anyone know up to which point of gestation abortion is allowed? There have been babies who have been born at 22-23 weeks and survived. Would the pro-choicers be ok about abortion at 23 weeks?
With all the back and forth on how verbally intrusive pro-life protesters are to women as they are walking to the clinics, I wonder if any of the people who act as escorts have ever considered buying noise-cancelling headphones for the women they are escorting. Never having used them, I’m not sure how effective they are at blocking out conversation, but I would think they would be of some help.
And I contend that it doesn’t. What makes your contention more valid than mine, other than religious/spiritual beliefs? The woman is DEFINITELY a human being. I don’t think that the embryo warrants that title yet. Yes, it might grow up to be a human being. But it might be so genetically flawed that even with the best maternal care, it develops into something with no brain. It might spontaneously miscarry. A zygote won’t always develop into a human, or into a viable human, despite what the unclassy one has to say. Of my three pregnancies, two of them were miscarriages, although since I had conceived while using birth control, the zygote/embryo might have been defective, and that’s why I miscarried.
Just saying that ALL conceptions are automatically human from the moment of fertilization seems to be an easy out. Yeah, it’s harder to decide when a fetus is viable, and that line keeps getting pushed back as time goes by, but I think that it’s better to look at the bigger picture, rather than just saying “This is wrong, every time”.
Ooops, never mind.
Yes and I’m the only one being rude:rolleyes:
I am sorry about your losses though:)
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
Here’s a very interesting article that I think everyone will enjoy.
So you’d support the taking of the life of another person to relieve the risk of the mother who’s chosen to carry to term?
I’ll try, too, with the same qualification:
The difference between the moment after birth and before should be obvious - the fact that before, the fetus is so attached as to be part of a woman’s own body.
We make no other legal prohibitions about what people do with parts of their own bodies.
Again, I am not addressing pregnancies in which the baby would die.
I’m asking about the very real case of pregnancies with fully viable fetuses that will kill the mother if delivered to term. I think most people have an innate moral sense that it is OK to terminate in this case. I am asking why this is.
I didn’t, but will happily do so now.
Viability is a movable concept. It’s certainly fair to say that medical science has created a viability point in 2011 that’s markedly before the viability point in, say, 1972. Are we then to argue that what is a human being is different now than it was in 1972 – that what is 1972 was a mere mass of tissue with human DNA but no legally cognizeable personhood is in 2001 a human being, worthy of consideration and protection? If so, we must accept that the great likelihood is that in 2041, viability will be even earlier – so are we now killing “people” that we don’t recognize as people now but will in 2041?
Birth is, in contrast, certainly a fixed point – no argument there. But claiming that birth is necessary to create a human being flies in the face of our common sense, for precisely the same viability reasons… we know that what’s about to be born is a human baby; do we seriously argue that we may kill it while it’s in the womb but ten minutes later, having been delivered vaginally, the same killing would result in a murder charge? Does that pass the common sense test?
And what of a cesearian delivery? At what point could I kill the baby in those circumstances without it being considered murder?
You know, I think most anti-choicers absolutely believe a fetus is as human as YOU are. Thing is, when their feet are to the fire, I suspect they don’t really believe it’s quite as human as THEY are. Is it just as human as you if it’s YOUR life it’s fucking with?
We’ve all been linked to “the only moral abortion” a million times, and for guys, with all due respect, they never really have to think it through, do they? They all stand around bemoaning having to pay child support as though that’s the hardest thing about having a kid. It’s not, and yet I’ve still seen it be enough to make a “pro-life” guy rethink his position, at least until after his convenience has been accommodated.
I don’t think that’s his intention. But as it happens, I just got a mailing from Planned Parenthood, and when the postman comes today, I’m going to stick a stamp on it and mail it with my check. In Bricker’s name, because his defense of harassing women is dishonest and nitpicky, just like his defenses of other conservative crap.
In situations like this they could both die you know.
iIdon’t understand what you mean by perfectly viable fetuses. If they are viable then they will not die when removed from the mother. I think you mean fetuses that will need to be removed before viability?
Thank you.
I agree that viability will move with technology, but don’t particularly see that as a problem. Many other areas of public policy change with time as well. We make decisions to terminate adults after injuries that will potentially someday be healed. We discover toxins that we readily exposed our children to in the past. Will we be considered murderers in the future? Perhaps.
I still contend that the capacity for survival outside of the womb is a useful demarcation line.
I think it does, actually. I’m not saying it is morally the right decision - in fact I’d think it very rarely is. And, since I tend to prefer the “viability” line as the point of “contingent personhood”, I don’t believe that the right to terminate 10 minutes before birth should be allowed unless necessary to maintain the life of the mother.
So, in short, viability (as defined by current medical tech) is the point at which the fetus is granted some human rights, but these rights are still below those of the mother (i.e., saving the mother’s life is a higher moral priority). At birth they are on equal footing (i.e., even if killing the already born baby would save the mother, hypothetically, it is morally wrong to do so).
You could kill the fetus during a C-section if it would save the life of the mother up until the point it is separated from the mother (clamping and cutting the cord). At that point they are morally equal beings.