Will you still be pro-abortion or pro-choice?

Great Debates
81

squeels, AFAIK, this is the exact definition that should be used. When the fetus can survive on it’s own,( allowing massive medical support) IMHO, It’s a baby. Before that, It’s only the potential of a baby. I agree also:

I agree with this as well. Non-viable babies should be aborted, and threatining the life of the mother is also a no brainer. What I would like to see is this: I will allow that there are probobly a few third trimester abortions performed where the above conditions are not met. These women should be given the option of FREE c-sections with the proviso that they are irrevocably severing their rights, responsibilities and obligations to the baby. These babies could then be adopted, I’m sure there is no lack of suitable, loving parents waiting. The trick would be funding for medical costs, which would be large, but since the actual number of procedures that meet the above conditions is low, it shouldn’t be insurmountable. I think that both sides could get behind this proposal, and the number of abortions would go down.:slight_smile: It would also eliminate the most controversial types of abortions. ( Uh-oh, bet that means the anti-choice crowd will oppose. Where would they be w/o the pictures like those at the start of this thread?)

82

I was concide at the expense of being clear. A bill dubbed “woman’s right to know” calling for government mandated anti-abortion counseling and a 24 hour waiting period was recently vetoed by Gov. Jesse Ventura here in Minnesota. I imagine similar bills are being debated in other states.
__________________

83

24 hour waiting period, yes. Unbiased, rational, non-judgemental counseling about ALL options, fine. But anti-abortion counseling, no, no, NO. That is so unethical it makes me want to puke. As a person trained in social work, I would hope that there would never, ever be individuals who had recieved proper training and yet would go ahead with committing such an abomination against the profession.

84

Well, they refer to it as “information on fetal development and abortion alternatives” but we all know the point is to try to disuade the woman from getting an abortion.

85

The 24 hour waiting period is often implemented in states with long travel times to a limited number of clinics a crypto-classist device to deny abortions to low income women, forcing them to either spring for a hotel room or make two long (200+ miles) trips to the clinic to get an abortion.

86

You think a mastery of advanced mathematics and literature is the mark of a fully developed brain? An educated one, maybe. I know a great many adults who don’t even know all of the state capitals, let alone the circumstances surrounding the Crimean War. I never had calculus in school, and thus am utterly unfamiliar with it. Does that mean I’m less than fully functional?

Yes, actually, there are. It’s not as if the doctors are conciously deciding to kill the fetus just for the hell of it or because they enjoy it. They don’t get off on abortion-- it’s just that some times it’s a medical necessity. There are medical conditions where a growing fetus could cause the uterine wall to rupture, causing massive hemmoraging and death. Or, if the fetus has attached itself to the fallopian tubes. In this case, there’s no way the fetus can be brought to term, and it’s a very serious risk to the woman’s life. I’m sure there are more.

87

Re: the “right to know” thing.

Say a girl gets pregnant, and does not want an abortion. She’s absolutely, positively not going to get one, no way, no how. She wants to place that child for adoption. Would anyone in the government dream of forcing abortion literature on her? Would anyone consider making her talk to someone who would try to talk her in to getting an abortion? Hell no.

But why not? She’s got three legal choices, and at this time, they’re all still legal. Why would the government mandate that anyone try to talk her out of the decision she’s made? That is not fair.

I’m glad Gov. Ventura saw fit to veto that puppy.

88

weirddave wrote:

Right now, I believe we’ve been able to save babies born as early as 3 months into the pregnancy. It’s a very machine- and labor-intensive process to incubate so premature a birth, though, and has a high chance for failure.

If we ever do create the technology for artificial wombs, will than mean that every fertilized ovum is a baby?

89

Morally, I’m against abortion. It’s murder as far as I’m concerned. I can’t reconcile myself to the fact that any abortion of any kind is an ok thing.

HOWEVER, it is legal. And I believe that a woman’s decision on what to do with her baby is solely her decision, and the father’s, if he is around. I think that abortion is probably the poorest choice to make, but it IS her choice. SO I guess I am pro-choice, because everybody reserves the right to decide what’s best for them. Especially if it is regarding a legal decision.
Does all that make sense? Sometimes it sounds good in my head, but when I try to type it comes out wrong.

90

Please quote facts on this, because I read at urbanlegends.about.com that this particular story is a “Christian Urban Myth” circulated as ammo for anti-choicers.

91

Actually, I don’t think it’s that early. 20 or 21 weeks is about the limit, since the lungs haven’t really formed before then.

A lot of those on the pro-life end of the spectrum want to prohibit abortion after about 16 weeks, “in case the doctor is off on the dates”. Then again, viability is very relative–I think it’s about 30 weeks before the kid has an odds-on chance of making it.

Dr. J

92

Satan wrote:

Hell, yes! What do you think that any law does? We also take away her choice to drive on the left side of the road, her choice to not pay her income tax, and her choice to carry high explosives on an airliner. Nobody complains about us taking away thosechoices. If, and I say if here, one accepts that a fetus is a person, then that person’s rights also need to be considered, and it is appropriate to limit the choices of the pregnant woman. If the fetus is not a person, then only the woman’s rights need to be considered. Satan, for example, in claiming that a fetus doesn’t become a person until birth, is at least consistent, but I think that he’s starting with a wrong premise. If we could all agree on when personhood begins (oh, heck, I know I’m dreaming there), then we could ban abortions after that point, and everyone would be satisfied. Some say conception, some say birth, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between: I do not consider an undifferentiated zygote to be a person, but I do consider it a person at some point in the fetal development. So, let’s hear where everyone considers a fetus to be a person, and why. You already have my stance, as above: Neural activity. Also proposed so far are viability outside the womb, and birth. Any others?

As to evilbeth’s comments regarding euthanasia, a truly pro-life person is pro-life on all issues, including but not limited to abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc. In other words, I agree with you that abortion should be exactly as allowable as euthanasia.

Sqweels and weirddave, it’s nice to see some other folks here addressing the issue rationally. I can only speak for myself here, but if we get some details worked out there, then I think that we can come to an agreement.

93

Ah. Okay, 4 months then. (3 months did sound a bit early.)

But lemme reiterate: If we were to develop an artificial uterus-like incubation chamber, such that any zygote can be implanted therein and any existing fetus can be safely transplanted thereto, does this mean that every fertilized egg would then be considered “viable outside the womb”?

94

Tracer, just so’s ya know, I was looking at my copy of What to Expect When You’re Expecting, and it says that by the end of the third month, the fetus is about 2 1/2 to 3 inches long, and weighs about 1/2 an ounce. Just a few facts so that you know why a fetus at that age won’t survive outside the womb. It’s really, really doubtful that a sixteen-week-old fetus could do it, either. At that point, the fetus is about 4 inches long, and weighs less that half a pound.

The artificial uterus thing positively creeps me out of existence. I can’t quite say why, but it just does. Reminds me of that MST3K movie Parts: The Clonus Horror or whatever it was called. Stupid movie, creepy premise. Could something like an artificial uterus be used to support clones?

pepperlandgirl: I understood what you were saying, really I did.

95

Thank you Cristi =)

96

**

Well, hopefully not legislate personal morality, which is what this is.

**

And this has to do with personal morality in what way again?

**

Well, yes, because they affect other people at least potentially. Abortion does not, though it is a shame that fathers don’t have as much rights. But since it is her body, after all…

**

Sorry, but you cannot give me an “if,” because “if” a woman feels this way, she probably won’t choose to get an abortion, now will she? Whereas if a woman does NOT feel this way, you are taking away her choice because of what YOU feel about HER fetus.

**

Now you’re catching on…

**

Yes, I don’t think a fetus is a child until it IS a child. Still, even if you assume that the fetus is viable outside of the womb at a certain point even though it is still in there (at the earliest, towards the end of the second trimester), the fact is that there are hardly ANY abortions done after this point, and the few that are done are because of complications.

**

Well, since as I said, the most arbitrary limit I could think of is being upheld pretty much across the board without any laws, what is the problem here?

**

Well, I don’t see that, since an overwhelming majority of pro-life folks are for the death penalty.

Hey - I’m talking quite rationally here. And I don’t think comparing abortion to the things you did above shows much rational thought, to be honest.

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one day, 10 hours, 34 minutes and 23 seconds.
1257 cigarettes not smoked, saving $157.20.
Life saved: 4 days, 8 hours, 45 minutes.

97

Here’s something I have to disagree with you on. The law is perfectly justified in legislating against someone’s personal morality if there is sufficient reason to do so. I am not arguing that it is justified in regards to abortion, but there are plenty of laws that run counter to people’s personal morality, and that’s just tough cookies for them. The state, in its infinite wisdom, has decreed that marijuana and prostitution are forbidden despite the fact that may people believe them to be perfectly okay. It has also decreed that religious beliefs mean squat when it comes to a parent withholding medical care for their children. Personal morality just doesn’t matter at all. It’s the prevailing morality of the society, tempered by rule of law, that drives legislation.

98

**

Okay, let’s look at your examples then…

**

Prostitution is illegal (in most places) originally due to morality, however, now it has become a health issue, which does effect other folks.

Now, I agree that marijuana should be legal, and this is a case of legislating peronal morality, but so are Blue Laws too. This does not make it right, and certainly does not justify more, and more egregious, cases of legislating personal morality.

Also, both of these items were not considered to be personal issues at he time the laws were put in place. Marijuana was supposed to be a health hazard which would effect others (I’m not saying it’s accurate, only that that was the prevailing thought then), and Blue Laws originally were put in place to prevent employers from demanding that workers work on days their religions saiud they shouldn’t.

**

The laws are perfectly clear that you can withold medical attention from yourself for religious reasons as an adult. But you bring up children here - How is that personal? It’s effecting others, in this case kids who don’t know any better.

So of your examples, I say that two of them are not cases of personal morality, and the other case is something which was at the time of it coming into fruition, was considered a public safety issue, and people/politicos are too (fill in the blank) to change them in light of new evidence.

As such, I would say that you have yet to come up with a convincing argument that in our society (I’m not talking about other Theocratic governments here) personal morality is being legislated to death.

Oh sure, some people are all for the idea, and with the power of the right, I could see these things happening. But that doesn’t make it right.

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, one day, 12 hours, 45 minutes and 51 seconds.
1261 cigarettes not smoked, saving $157.66.
Life saved: 4 days, 9 hours, 5 minutes.

99

Chronos wrote:

You must not have talked with any members of the “sovereign citizen” crowd lately. They swear up-and-down that not paying taxes is their “right”.

100

IMO, the issue is not about personal morality, but about what criteria you use for what constitutes a human being. If you can establish that a fetus is a human being, then abortion would be no better than killing an already-born child. If you can show that it is just a bunch of tissue with the potential to become human, then abortion is no worse than having your appendix removed.

And just what benefit do waiting periods provide, anyway? The decision to have an abortion is not taken lightly, nor is it done on a spur-of-the-moment whim.