But YOU turned your body into a host when you invited sperm into it. (whether you took precautions against that risk or not)
Further the pregnancy that resulted from YOUR CHOICES endangers your physical health in a very small percentage of the time. In those instances some difficult choices need to be made.
The fact remains that among the more than 50 million babies who are taken from their mothers wombs every year and discarded like trash, an insignificant amount of them are due to health issues of the mother, rape or incest.
More often than not, it’s no more complicated then the baby will ‘change my plans.’
This is true. However, I am still thinking that due to how I feel about this issue and how it affects me personally it would be best if I do not participate further in discussion of it.
And finally we arrive back at the “you play you pay” theory of reproductive rights.
And so I’ll ask you again. I need a kidney. It’s not my fault. Hell, let’s take it a step further and assume it’s your fault. If the only way I can live is to take your kidney, does that give me the right?
I absolutley disagree with what the raindog is arguing, but this is a specious argument. The fact that we’ve developed various religious and secular traditions around the date of birth doesn’t mean anything with regards to the beginning of life.
It’s like arguing that nobody in your family is a monkey during an evolution debate. Completley useless to the discussion.
That’s pretty much my position. Although the whole trimester thing is very artificial. I tend to look at it in terms of viability. My suggestion would be that abortion should be OK up to the point of viability minus some fudge factor. IOW, if a fetus is viable at 6 months, then lets allow abortions up until 5 months. I think it would be wise to err on the safe side.
I was raised as one, but since I haven’t gone to Mass forever, and I pretty much deny everything the church stands for, I think I’ve already been excommunicated, even without being pro-choice.
Either way, the church can kiss my ass.
What’s your point?
This is pretty much my position, too. I don’t believe in the sanctity of life. I do not believe that a human being, simply by existing, has the right to exist. I believe that that right must be earned, or on the other hand that killing a human being (or the potential to become a human being) must have a net positive consequence.
Essentially, my views are that a human foetus, if it could be removed and grown in an artificial womb, should always be brought to term (either in the womb or at the mother’s choice, the artificial one ( circumstances permitting )). Seeing as how we can’t do that, it’s a comprimise between the mother and the foetus/potential human, and i’m happy to have the line drawn at the point of viability (minus John Mace’s fudge factor)
Btw, John Mace, I seem to agree with you a lot. What’s your political viewpoint?
Alright. Since you are disavowing rhetoric, and seem to be serious in your question, I’ll answer you.
As it applies to mammals, all mammals, humans included:
Life begins when it is self sustaining.. There is no life, no viability, until it is outside the womb. Taking the large percentage of fertilized eggs that don’t adhere to the uterine wall, the number of spontaneous miscarriages, the trauma of birth (I’ve helped deliver three blue babies that had beating hearts when the woman went into labor), it is impossible to call any animal “alive” until they are not dependent on their mother’s body to continue living.
I realize you’ll probably reject that response, but as a clinician, that’s the only one I can give you. If a baby is able to survive outside the mother at 7 months or even 6 months, then it’s alive. Prior to that, all bets are off.
I absolutely oppose the taking of a human life for any reason. I think people have a right to exist and I can’t imagine how we could have any other rights at all if we didn’t start off with that one.
I stated in a previous GD thread that I don’t believe third trimester abortions should be performed, and if the mother’s health or life was threatened. I also think that at that point a c-section should be performed and every attempt to save the child’s life made.
If circumstances have changed to the point that you no longer want a child after being pregnant for 8 months, then you should make contact with an adoption agency to find a good home for the child you’re carrying.
I’ll answer for myself that I think catsix’s position is repellent. But as a Democrat I’m unfortunately very used to being lumped in with a bunch of fanatics that don’t come anywhere within shouting distance of a rational position on anything.
No, life isn’t the determining factor. Unfertalized eggs are alive. Every cell in your body is alive. The question is when does a fetus become enough of a human that we, as a society, cannot accept killing it. There is no scientific reason to asign that status to a fertized ovum. There may be a reiligious reason, but we don’t make our laws based on religious reasons. You need to make some argument based on the “humanness” of the fetus. Whether that is viability, or the ability to feel pain, or the registering of brain waves, that is a point of debate for legal purposes. But just claiming that a ferilized ovum is a “human being” doesn’t make it so. A fertilized ovum is no more human than is one of my skin cells.
Relevant Threshold: Im vaguely libertarian (small “l”), but not a member of the “L” party. But my position on abortion is probably more a function of my not having any religious beliefs.
