The main argument in favor of abortions is to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted whatever.
What if the child is already born…perhaps even a few years down the line…the child is now unwanted for one reason or another.
Could someone successfully argue that the burden to the mother and society in general outweighs any constitutional rights of the born child?
Should unwanted children no-one wants to adopt be destroyed?
I highly doubt it. The main distinction here is whether the child is dependent on the mother’s hosting it inside her body, or could viably survive outside it, with whatever degree of assistance. Once living outside of the mother’s body, the child attains all human rights, including and of course not limited to, the right to life.
An unborn child (at least up to a certain point, say the second or third trimester) is totally dependent on the mother’s body to continue existing. The argument here is that the child/fetus has no right to life because it is not yet viable (or rather, that the mother’s right to control her own body trumps the “right” of the fetus to grow to the point of having a right to life).
To recap: fetus, as dependent on mother’s body, has no right to life. Born child, as independent of mother’s body, has right to life.
It has happened all through history , so why not now as well? Up until recently girl children were being left to die of exposure and starvation in countries where it was prefferable to have male children. The only thing stopping it now is pressure from society. I wouldnt call it abortion. If killing unwanted children was considered abortion, then I guess the death penalty would be a type of abortion as well.
It’s still common today in China and rural India.
That’s a scary thought!
Much like the “pro-choicers” saying that if you take away their right to abort whomever, whenever they want, that soon women won’t even be alowed to vote, and so on and so forth!
I would truely hope that it wouldn’t come to either of those - but one can only wonder!
Very interesting topic, though!
Interesting subject…
I just wonder what sort of society we want to live in?
Are we really ready for a Brave New World?
-b
Well, of course it continues to happen… but it shouldn’t. Not at all.
Beadalin Are you aware of the so-called partial birth abortions?
I am. I didn’t think they were particularly pertinent to this thread. I also thought I made clear that there is a good argument to be made that a fetus has no right to life when it is dependent on its mother’s body (generally, up to through the second trimester). Beyond the second trimester, when you’re in partial-birth abortion territory, the fetus is, or can be, viable outside of the mother’s body with the proper medical attention. That was why I said:
Enola Straight was, if I’m reading the OP right, positing that if abortion is OK, killing a child after it’s born is OK, too. I was illustrating that a large contingent of people believe that the right to life comes into effect only when the baby could live outside the mother’s body. If the fetus can’t, it has no right to life. If it can, then it does.
For what it’s worth, I’m pro-choice but do not believe that partial-birth abortions should be legal, more or less because I believe that when a baby has made it to the third trimester, it gets vested with the right to life because, with proper care, it could live.
Kill 'em all. What right do they have to life? They’re just fetuses.
Urm…well, they were just five minutes ago. Well then, forget about it.
I believe that one day live fetuses and embryos will be worth so much nobody would willingly throw one away - just have someone pay to take it out of you.
Snort. I know, I’m ALWAYS insisting on aborting people! At school, on dates, wherever! I don’t care if my friends say I’m being “uncool,” it’s my right dammit! And if they don’t watch their backs, one of them will be next!
Gooooo abortion!
I’m going to stay out of this one, but I woud like to point out that some of y’all are skirting the edges of trolling, here.
It’s unfortunate that many children up for adoption cannot find homes. Black children have particular difficulties in this area, especially if they’re older children. Rather than “disposing” of them, perhaps we should consider state-run homes for children, somewhat like the orphanages of years ago.
We do have the foster-home system, however, and even if a child cannot find a person willing to adopt them, there are foster parents willing to take them in temporarily. Being shuffled from home to home is not ideal, but it’s a damn sight better than killing the children.
Realisticly, we need these children to grow up and become taxpayers to support our system. Not to be cold, or anything, but we also need people that will fill service industry jobs. Some of them will go on to college, and be the scientists, doctors and politicians of the future. While America is not suffering from being underpopulated, every person that contrinutes to society is important, even if their contribution is limited to simply paying their taxes, and being a consumer.
** Rhum Runner, ** this has probably been addressed in countless threads, but PBA is not usually preformed simply because the woman has decided that she doesn’t want the baby after all. Usually, it’s because the baby has serious health problems, such as encephalitis, is severely deformed, or health issues with the mother make the birth particularly risky. Many physicians are unwilling to preform a PBA just because the mother changed her mind.
Beadalin I think it was this remark:
which confused me on your position, because I (mis)read it to be saying that the only time a fetus can be independent was after it had been born. I think I agree with you, that abortion after the fetus/baby is viable outside the mother’s body, should be banned.
I would make an exception for cases of things like ecclampsia, toxemia, anencephaly or hydrocephaly, in which there is great likelihood that the woman will die, or that the fetus is incapable of survival even if it is born.
I couldn’t in good conscience force someone to deliver a baby that is known not to have a brain, or to die of ecclampsia in trade off, although I’d hope for a Caesarean instead of abortion if possible.
Partial birth abourtion is frequently done on fetuses that can survive outside the mother.
Also babies, can’t survive on their own either.
Could you give a cite showing that PBA is done frequently for elective reasons?
In this SDMB thread you can see the total destruction of NurseCarmen’s argument that
complete with cites