True. I guess I’m trying to get a feel for what people mean by that, which is what I wrote in my first response to this thread. When people choose the first option, do those respondants literally mean that a voluntary abortion would still be acceptable while the woman was in labor?
I chose the first option, and I’m willing to shrug off the emotional appeal of the hypothetical on the grounds that it never actually happens. Heck, I could buy that in the agonies of labour, women frequently say “abort it RIGHT NOW!”, but I’m prepared to trust doctors to act accordingly.
I don’t buy even that. Once a woman has gone thru her pregnancy, it’s because she probably wants the child; she’s more likely to say “Give me an epidural, damn it!” or “Do a C-section!” to the doctor.
And, of course, to promise the father that he’s never getting anything but blowjobs from her henceforth, if even that.
Well, having not performed anything approaching rigor in studying the question, I’m prepared to accept that women undergoing labor are prone to say all kinds of things, including statements disparaging (if not downright threatening) to both the about-to-be-born baby and the men who got them pregnant.
EEGs show that third-trimester babies display complex brain activity similar to that found in full-term newborns. The legal and moral implications of this new evidence are enormous. After all, society increasingly uses cessation of brain activity to define when life ends. Why not use the onset of brain activity to define when life begins?
(from “What neither side wants you to know.
Abortion and Brain Waves”
By GREGG EASTERBROOK
Issue date: 01.31.00
Post date: 01.24.00
I voted for <blank> (the last option)
I think you might want to change the bit I bolded to "when human life begins. I could be wrong, though.
Oops…just noticed this now.
I don’t think removing a 1-month-old infant from the world particularly hurts society, if the parents are O.K. with it. But I don’t think it should be legal.
S’alright. The only persons expected to instantly respond to my every remark are safely locked in my basement.
Which reminds me; I should probably feed them this week. Must make note.
Seriously? For just ANY reason the parents choose?
Thank Hera for that.
Well, maybe not if both parents were clinically insane or something. But I just don’t see a huge difference between a fetus and an infant, so if I don’t have a problem with terminating a fetus (and I don’t, particularly, although I wouldn’t necessarily want to encourage it) it would be hypocritical of me to have a problem with terminating an infant.
Forgive me if I find that statement vile, contemptible, sickening, and evil.
I think the salient difference isn’t in the baby itself, it’s in the baby’s location and method of life–that is, abortion’s legal (and, IMHO, ethical) justification is entirely predicated on the idea that the fetus is a potentially unwanted passenger who is literally forced to use the resources of another rights-holding human to live. Once it’s alive outside the womb, though, it’s an independent person in the sense that no one human is inextricably and biologically tied to its care, and it can be given up to other people without any long-term repercussions.
I would agree with Skald’s statement; however, I don’t think it’s as productive as a discussion of issues.
Question: At what point does an infant become something with rights that cannot be arbitrarily killed at the whim of its guardians, in your opinion?
It would be great if they could pitch in for the health care costs while they’re doing it, maybe stop trying to shut down places like Planned Parenthood that offer subsidized or free maternal health care and preventive education and birth control. It would really just add that air of authenticity.
I voted “anytime until birth”. But I’m willing to go up to 3 months after!
Since you’re talking this position, too, can you respond to my post #111? When does a creature with human DNA and structure become “a human being (with rights)” in your worldview?
I have no right to make that decision about someone else’s life.
There’s just no way to determine a point during pregnancy at which the fetus acquires person-hood, and before which point it is “ethically OK” to abort. And it’s everyone’s business because society has to have laws protecting “persons.” What if I don’t believe my 1-year-old has achieved person-hood yet? There’s no reasoned justification for abortion (euthanasia, maybe, if the baby faces a horrible family situation(?)); it’s all about the emotional/political/legal tug-of-war.
I didn’t read the responses from the other posters, well, primarily because I didn’t want anyone to cloud or change my initial thoughts on the OP’s question, which is that I have a problem with the word ‘ethical’ as it seems to imply that at some point during gestation it is okay or even expected for outside influences to judge the woman for contemplating ending the pregnancy, where as I don’t believe it’s anyone’s damned business other than the pregnant woman, no matter when she chooses to do it. Including the concept of ethics places a needless condition and complication on the woman’s choice, which I think is presumptuous and unfair.
Seems at odds with your pacifism.
I was joking, people! I do not seriously condone infanticide. I think after the kid is born, the woman’s rights are no longer a problem and society kicks in as the responsible entity (or should.)
Let me rephrase that in case it comes up in unrelated threads - I do not condone it in non-survival modern situations. I *might *condone it (by immediate exposure or euthanasia, not direct violence) in some sort of post-apocalyptic/Stone Age setting where abortion isn’t a safe option, but probably not even then, I’d have to think about it.
Crap. Can someone change my vote to "Abortion is ethically allowable only when the fetus could not be viable outside the womb. " from other?
AFAIK, that is the reasonable limit. After that just carry the kid, deliver or have a c-section and place it up for adoption. There an awful lot of people who want a healthy baby out there.