Abortion

[Douglas]

Abortion to me isn't really an issue. I'm pro-choice, because, we all have the right to make choices that effect our life, and no one entity nor person should have dominion over our right to choose.

Does that include suicide?

 

Anyway, I'm not pro choice, but I can tolerate abortions up to the 2nd trimester.... In some states you can be convicted of murder or manslaughter for killing the fetus of a pregnant woman, not sure how all this fits in with aborting. Seems like in one case you're just killing a fetus, in the other case you're killing a child.

[Diedra Moose]

Abortion as a political issue is not about morals.

 

The political issues centers around the role that governemt should play in our decisions.

Does gov't have the right to tell pepole waht to do with their bodies? Can a governing state tell us we cannot end an unwanted pregnancy? Can it tell us we can't peanut- butter and banana sandwhiches on the second Tuesday of every month? religion is a very personal thing, and that is why the seperation between church and state exist. This explains Abortion as a POLITICAL issue.

Abortion as a MORAL issue is very different. I am pro-choice, but personally would probably not have an abortion. But I never say never because you really never know waht can happen. The world is jsut too crazy to say 'never'

[AL]

Abortion as a political issue is not about morals.

It would be ideal to separate the politics from the morality, but in practice, it's not so easy to do. I would like, in general, for the government to refrain from legislating morality as well, but only to the extent that the (im)moral acts in question do not result in anyone being harmed or having their rights infringed. This is why I'm ok with government passing laws against murder even though it's a moral issue -- we acknowledge at least an implicit right to life, and murder infringes upon that.

 

In a similar fashion, one could easily assert that a fetus has a right to life, and that abortion infringes upon the rights of the fetus. Whether or not a fetus has a right to life is a moral question. It's not that easy to separate morality from politics.

[sepultallica]

ultimately, it has to be a woman's choice. i think it should be an option they should be able to explore. i believe that the government should even step in at times and force abortions. some people shouldnt have kids.

[Lance]

Similar thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5066&page=1

[Douglas]

Well, for those who are pro abortion, how do you feel about "partial birth" abortion??

 

PBA is performed from about the end of the second trimester up to and including the the 9th month.

[Rakasha]

My opinion : I'm completely pro-abortion. Main reason : the baby lives in a woman's womb in a parasitic state and cannot possibly lives on it's own. Therefore, it's the same entity as the pregnant woman, as much as her hand. Surely she has every rights to amputate her hand.

 

Wheter a real person will possibly emerge from a completed pregnancy is not important because basing an opinion of this is not viable. Because it considers that not making a baby is a murderous act. It means that if you're not making a baby right now (and you are'nt), then you are a killer. Does'nt that sounds bad ?

 

About partial abortions:

 

I'm all for it, yeah, puncture the little guy's head. Meh, it seems to me that partial birth abortions are a bad case of ¨Eek, this is disgusting, this is probably wrong¨. I'll see that anybody who thinks like that never receive a vital operation that is ¨disgusting and therefore bad¨.

[Aardvark]

My opinion : I'm completely pro-abortion. Main reason : the baby lives in a woman's womb in a parasitic state and cannot possibly lives on it's own. Therefore' date=' it's the same entity as the pregnant woman, as much as her hand. Surely she has every rights to amputate her hand.

 

 

I'm all for it, yeah, puncture the little guy's head. Meh, it seems to me that partial birth abortions are a bad case of ¨Eek, this is disgusting, this is probably wrong¨. I'll see that anybody who thinks like that never receive a vital operation that is ¨disgusting and therefore bad¨.[/quote']

 

I think there is a contradiction in your argument.

 

You state that a baby in the womb is parasitic and can not possibly live on it's own. This being the basis for your acceptance of abortion.

 

You then state that partial birth abortion is acceptable to you. However, at the stage where a partial birth abortion is carried out the baby is capable of living outside of the womb. The baby is no longer 'parasitic' or part of the same entity as the woman.

 

I disagree with partial birth abortions, not because they are disgusting (although they are) but because at this stage the baby is an independant human being. Therefore partial birth abortion is infanticide.

[Rakasha]

Post #31

PBA is performed from about the end of the second trimester up to and including the the 9th month.

 

My point is that PBA are'nt ethically different from any other method of abortion.

 

You're only talking of a situation where it is performed on a fully developed baby. You're talking about killing a baby during it's birth. I confess, it's kinda hard for me to have a definite opinion in such a blurred situation. We can't even say if the baby is born or not....

 

Anyway, by default, I'd stay on the same side. If the baby is'nt fully born, it's still a parasite. The baby should at least be cut of life support to be considered a different entity. Even if it's soon going to be a cute baby, the fetus is part of the woman's body until it's out and alive by itself.

[Aardvark]

Post #31

You're talking about killing a baby during it's birth. I confess' date=' it's kinda hard for me to have a definite opinion in such a blurred situation. We can't even say if the baby is born or not....

 

Anyway, by default, I'd stay on the same side. If the baby is'nt fully born, it's still a parasite. The baby should at least be cut of life support to be considered a different entity. Even if it's soon going to be a cute baby, the fetus is part of the woman's body until it's out and alive by itself.[/quote']

 

Partail birth abortion takes place when the fully formed baby is in the process of being born.

 

To consider the baby a parasite and therefore a part of the womens body to do with as she wants does not make sense. At this stage the baby is an individual human being. That makes it very different from abortion earlier in the pregnancy when the unformed foetus can be reasonably called part of the womans body.

[Lance]

I don’t see how a partial birth abortion is any different than killing your son when hes 12 years old.

 

The baby is actually partially delivered during a PBA. If it went a few more inches you would call it murder!

[Douglas]

Post #31

Anyway' date=' by default, I'd stay on the same side. If the baby is'nt fully born, it's still a parasite. The baby should at least be cut of life support to be considered a different entity. Even if it's soon going to be a cute baby, the fetus is part of the woman's body until it's out and alive by itself.[/quote']

A parasite needs a victim, in most PBA cases, the fetus is capable of surviving on it's own. I.E. it doesn't need a victim (the Mother).

The reason the procedure is called PBA, is that the fetus is too large to dispose of while inside the mother, the baby needs to be breeched and brought partially outside the vagina to be killed.

 

Here's an interesting contradiction:

In many states, a person can be charged with murder or manslaughter if that person maliciously hurts a pregant woman in a manner that results in the death of the baby.

Yet, a doctor can kill a fetus, as it's being born.

 

The law seems to be.............

with abortion: if you kill a fetus you're not killing a baby.

With manslaughter: If you kill a fetus, you're killing a baby.

[Rakasha]

A parasite needs a victim, in most PBA cases, the fetus is capable of surviving on it's own. I.E. it doesn't need a victim (the Mother).

I see your point of view. That's a rather strange way to put it. I considered that as long as the baby was not fully delivered, the pregnancy was not completed. You're saying that the baby could be extracted and survive. Well...

 

I mean, I could use modern science to cut your hand and keep it alive separately. That's kinda saying that your hand is not part of your body. But I see your point of view.

 

The baby is actually partially delivered during a PBA.

To be correct, are'nt you saying that it's forcefully partially delivered when it's still actually still dependand ? Or are you only talking of PBA during the natural birth ?

 

The law seems to be.............

with abortion: if you kill a fetus you're not killing a baby.

With manslaughter: If you kill a fetus, you're killing a baby.

It seems to me like an attempt to establish the basic of a law that deny abortions rights.

 

 

- First, put in use a law that gives rights to a fetus as a human beings but is only negative to killers. Everybody accept because it's a law that punish killers.

 

- Then, put in use a law that give overal rights to a fetus.

 

- Then put in use a law that deny abortion rights.

 

Then the governement, who clearly do not wish to represent the public opinion, starts doing the monkey dance

[Aardvark]

I see your point of view. That's a rather strange way to put it. I considered that as long as the baby was not fully delivered' date=' the pregnancy was not completed. You're saying that the baby could be extracted and survive. Well...

 

I mean, I could use modern science to cut your hand and keep it alive separately. That's kinda saying that your hand is not part of your body.

[/quote']

 

Not exactly, the baby would be an independent human being, whereas the hand would simply be a tissue sample. Partial birth abortions take place at 9 months, on healthy babies who can breath, cry and do every thing any baby can do including thinking and feeling. They are babies, no longer a foetus. To kill them is not to kill a parasite or a part of the womens body but a seperate person. There is no practical difference between killing a baby with a partial birth abortion and killing a 1 day old baby, they are the same.

[Rakasha]

Not exactly, the baby would be an independent human being, whereas the hand would simply be a tissue sample.

 

You lost me there, pal. Why is the baby different ? He's hooked to the body at the same level that the hand.

 

Partial birth abortions take place at 9 months, on healthy babies who can breath, cry and do every thing any baby can do including thinking and feeling.

 

You mean, they CAN take place at 9 months and such and such. That rather demonizing the method by presenting only it's borderline possible situation.

 

Anyway, I don't see a good reason to change my opinion. In my mind, the baby must be born naturally to start being considered a person. Until then, the baby is being nurtured and it's creation process is'nt over.

 

I don't think it makes the baby any less dependent to claim that it could be extracted and kept alive. If it does'nt come of it's own, it's nature is still of a parasite.

 

They are babies, no longer a foetus.

 

Terminology question : I always though that a incubating baby was called a foetus. Since we are'nt using the same words, can you fill me in with a better definition ?

 

To kill them is not to kill a parasite or a part of the womens body but a seperate person. There is no practical difference [/b'] between killing a baby with a partial birth abortion and killing a 1 day old baby, they are the same

 

¨No practical difference¨... Can't accept this argument. That's saying that the fetus possess the baby's rights because it looks like one and will soon be one. It's still considering what the baby could be if it was born, and not making a baby still is'nt a crime. Plus, this ¨no practical difference¨ is quite a slippery.

 

I mean, having sex with a person aged of 17 years and 364 days is still illegal. Yet, after one day, there will be no practical difference concerning the person.

[Aardvark]

I mean' date=' having sex with a person aged of 17 years and 364 days is still illegal. [/quote']

 

Not where i come from

 

Seriously though, To argue whether a baby is a baby or a foetus at one hour or one day before birth reduces this discussion to pointless semantics.

 

My position is that partial birth abortions carried out at 9 months are taking place on babies/foetus's which are no longer either parts of the Mother in the sense that a hand is part of the Mother or are purely parasites.

 

At that stage the baby/foetus is fully developed, it makes no ethical sense for its right to be decided on a purely geographical basis. In every sense at this stage of the pregnacy the baby/foetus has reached the level of development as a baby in a crib.

 

To argue that it is acceptable to kill it because it is a parasite doesn't make any sense to me. Any new born child is parastic, completely dependent on others. Yet i doubt you would accept it as ethical to allow post natal abortion.

 

''In my mind, the baby must be born naturally to start being considered a person. Until then, the baby is being nurtured and it's creation process is'nt over.''

 

A baby/foetus is still being nurtured after birth. And what do you mean by ''be born naturally'' Is an unnaturally born baby/foetus not a person?

 

In brief, i consider that making no difference between a Mothers hand and a 9 month foetus in her womb is simply wrong.

 

And by your reasoning it would be acceptable to kill a baby that has been born, but is still attached to the Mother by the umbilical cord, making it a 'parasite'. Something i consider self evidently wrong.

 

I can't see either of those arguments having the ethical validity to justify killing a 9 month baby/foetus. Some abortions may be justified, but 9 month partial birth abortions don't fit into that catergory.

[Phi for All]

Personally, I can't condone PBAs. But I feel it is critical to allow abortions up to a certain point, and using the benevolent parasite appeal seems the best approach towards giving the mother enough rights to protect what happens to her own body.

 

If you grant the unborn child equal status (complete anti-abortion) there are too many complications that can arise. Is every mother who miscarries somehow guilty of negligent homicide? There needs to be some identifiable time period when abortion is an option and when it isn't.

 

Again, personally, it would never be an issue for my wife and I. We have talked about it and would never choose abortion unless her life was threatened medically. But we are not everyone and a big part of choice is realizing that people and circumstances differ greatly and respecting that.

[Rakasha]

I agree with Phi, we should'nt make as little abortions as possible or none at all. But it's not my right to stop other people.

 

Not where i come from

 

Actually, same here . I just though it was a good analogy since most of the forum goers should be concerned by this law. And it's the kind of law everbody is familiar with.

 

About the parasite argument, yep, parasite is an ugly word. But it's not simply because of the bad connotation of the word that I base my argument. I just think that for a baby to be an individual and have the rights of an individual, it must at last have it's own natural vital fonctions. That's what I mean by naturally born.

 

In brief, i consider that making no difference between a Mothers hand and a 9 month foetus in her womb is simply wrong.

 

Well, the problem is, how about 8 months ? 4, 2, 1 months ? Before it is conceived ? In my opinion, if you take into consideration that a pregnancy must be protected by rights because of it's future, then you must consider that not making a baby is a crime. That just can't be. The future of a pregnancy, even if we're talking one week, should be irrelevant.

 

And by your reasoning it would be acceptable to kill a baby that has been born, but is still attached to the Mother by the umbilical cord, making it a 'parasite'.

 

Naah, not exactly. My point of view is that the baby is an individual when it has basic vital functions. That happens at his birth. But abortion during the birth ? That's quite blured and borderline, so it's impossible to be absolutly right about the morality. By default, I'd stay on the same side and say that the birth must be fully completed for the baby to be able to live on it's own.

[Aardvark]

during [/u'] the birth ? That's quite blured and borderline, so it's impossible to be absolutly right about the morality. By default, I'd stay on the same side and say that the birth must be fully completed for the baby to be able to live on it's own.

 

I understand what you mean about the difficulty of fixing a point and saying 'on this day abortion is fine, but one day longer and it is murder'.

 

However that point does have to be fixed somewhere, even accepting that it will be by definition partly arbitarty.

 

The point where you make the distiction is to far advanced for me. Saying that the birth must be fully completed means that it is acceptable to kill the baby if even one toe is still inside its Mother, while it would be murder the second the toe slips out.

 

I can't believe that in reality this is something you would be happy with. Yes, drawing any line will be blurred and require moral compromise, but i am certain that that line should be drawn further back than the moment of birth.

[revprez]

I'd like to know the positions of forum-goers on the issue of abortion and their reasoning behind said positions. At the moment, I'm relatively neutral on the topic, and I'd like to hear some arguments for either side. Here's a preemptive 'thanks' to anyone that posts on this thread.

 

Against it. I presently exist as a single living organism. I've been a single living organism since I was conceived. I had, have and will continue to demand the right to exist as a single living organism as far as the question is not wholly dependent on the choices of others for any given period of time. Since I'm such a nice guy, I extend the same right to everyone else.

 

Rev Prez

[Phi for All]

Perhaps we have such a problem with this issue in the US because we are looking for legal definitions about a cultural choice in a country where there are many different cultures. A culture with overpopulation problems might view abortion completely differently than one that reveres all life, even animals.

 

For some it's a sin to eat a cow, for others to eat a pig, and for others neither holds any special significance. Should the Hindu condemn others for supporting McDonald's? Should a Jew knock my plate of bacon out of my hands?

 

A Buddhist may consider any abortion a crime while the Hindu says you can do it if you are willing to risk the bad karma you are certain to bring upon yourself. Should one dictate to the other how things should be for all when they live in the same country?

 

Morally, your upbringing should dictate how you perceive taking the life of a fetus at any stage of development. Legally, the courts have to make allowances that encompass all who live within a society. Unfortunately, the courts can't make an abortion law that is fair to all. So I say placing the limit on abortions at the halfway point in the pregnancy is about as fair as you could ever get.

[Tetrahedrite]

Well said!!

[Rakasha]

Yup, I completely agree with Phi for all.

 

I can't believe that in reality this is something you would be happy with.

 

Of course I would be bitter at a murderous birth. I have some feelings

 

But the problem is, there are no black and white cases in abortion and yet we are confronted to a black and white decision (kill it or not). We have to make a general decision concerning civil rights, whether some situations will be rather hard and bring tears.

 

In my opinion, it's not ok for someone to only allow some abortions; it's kinda like having no basic of judgement. The rights must be decided to come either at conception, either at birth.

[revprez]

Perhaps we have such a problem with this issue in the US because we are looking for legal definitions about a cultural choice in a country where there are many different cultures.

 

Fortunately, there is a legislative process and federalism.

 

Rev Prez

[john5746]

I think rights begin at conception, but they can be superseded by the mother, or to save the mother. Phi's solution sounds good. I think doctors or helpers should be held to a different standard than the mother though. In other words, if the mother were to abort the child in the third trimester, I wouldn't consider her a murderer. Maybe in need of psychological therapy, but not prison.