My position is only about women having the right to end a pregnancy as safely as possible. If technology advances such that it is equally safe (under any and all possible conditions) to end a pregnancy (at any time) by delivering the baby alive compared to a traditional dead-fetus abortion, then my position would not object to a law requiring the safe, live-birth option.
I might oppose such a law on other grounds (in fact, I’m not exactly sure), but not for the reason that I currently oppose any restrictions on abortion rights.
The question is when does a blob of cells become a child? Because I don’t see a blob of undifferentiated cells as a human being. If I did, that would lead to the logical conclusion that shedding a drop of blood is equivalent to murder of a entire person.
I don’t think forcing human beings to be involuntary incubators is “morally admirable”, either, and if you do you clearly have a very different view of morality than I do.
Roe vs. Wade provided us with a graduated scale of interests, which, I think, is a fairly elegant compromise. Early abortions: no limits. Late abortions: some limits.
Does status of protection for an embryo/fetus change for ANY of the following situations?:
Mother REALLY wants to abort (and may be looking at that bottle of Draino too closely :eek: ).
Both mother and father want to abort. (in reference to law in thread topic)
Pregnancy was due to rape.
Non-viable pregnancy which can harm mother (like ectopic pregnancy).
Potentially viable pregnancy but harm to mother goes beyond normal (various health complications that makes pregnancy high-risk, or needing chemotherapy)
Birth defect that is guaranteed to be fatal shortly after birth.
Non-fatal (or non-fatal if treated) birth defect that will require expensive, lifelong treatment and make it impossible for child to ever live even semi-independently.(*)
(*) Apologies to those I am inevitably offending by including #7 in the list. #7 can unfortunately cover a whole slew of birth defects that includes some degrees of Down Syndrome. There are many with such birth defects whose loved ones do not consider as “better off dead/not being born” in the slightest. #7 also covers more extreme birth defects, but it is really subjective as to what a parent/family would consider being able to handle emotionally/financially and/or as being too cruel for a child to be forced to live through.
But the point is that if a woman wants to terminate she can, if she wants to keep it she can. The man is expected to fulfill his responsibilities no matter what the woman decides. If she decides to terminate even if he wants to keep it, the fetus is terminated. If she decided to keep it, he has to pay for it even if he didn’t want to. The woman has a bigger role in the child’s development, but you guys are acting like men are just there to do whatever the woman decides whether they want to or not. Before anyone says ‘sex has consequences, deal with it’ as a way of writing off men who want influence on what happens with their children, that is the same argument and line of reasoning anti-abortion activists use to force women to carry children to term.
So there is a difference of opinion as to when the embryo or fetus becomes a human being. Why do you think your religious opinion should be the default position?
I think believing a small developing human being is magically something else until mom declares it human and dad now has to pay for it requires a level of supernatural mysticism that easily rivals most religions.
That’s a biological term but science doesn’t have much to say about when “life begins” in terms of when an abortion is okay.
It’s a social and political (and religious for some) question and I don’t think you really want to rely on science for your answer.
A scientist would certainly tell you “that’s a *human *zygote” just like they’d tell you you just gave birth to a *human *neonate. Using different developmental terms doesn’t make it less human anymore than calling it “adolescent” somehow makes it not human. It’s not a horse or a dog or a cyst or whatever silly euphemism people like to use these days. Believing it’s something other than human must require something supernatural, don’t you think?
Kill it if you want. Better than abusing or neglecting it or exposing it to whatever drugs, cigarettes or alcohol you’re using.
Give men the same reproductive rights you enjoy. At least 20 weeks after official notification of pregnancy to decide if they’re ready to be a parent.
I think abortion should be legal in cases 4), 5) and 6). Self defence is a legitimate reason for the use of force. 3) is a tough case but I would lean towards no there, as well as in the other cases.
If you want to pass laws that restrict someone else’s rights you should have more than your feelings to go on.
Science is not using words to obscure something. Science is not using euphemisms to make something seem “less bad”. The terms are neutral. They simply describe something distinct. It is you (general “you”) who brings emotional baggage to the terms.
To a large degree, it isn’t a scientific question. (However, when there is no brain, it’s very difficult for me to imagine there is any possible “personhood.”)
And the other half of us think that we should default on the side of liberty, not using the vast power of the state to compel someone to do something abhorrent to her personal choice.
And there is no “might” about that at all. Women are being compelled to act against their will.
None of which is what this thread is about. The law itself assumes abortion is legal; it just takes the decision whether or not to have one away from the pregnant woman.