Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Xequat]

I've mentioned this idea briefly in another thread, but I'd like opinions from both sides on how to fix the abortion disagreement.

Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it. Personally, I am not in favor of abortion; I think it devalues human life, but I am willing to compromise the idea without compromising my principles. But until it has brain waves, maybe we should consider it as something other than alive and allow the woman to decide. Once the child has brain waves, however, I think it's up to us to protect it. It's always been an issue of woman's rights versus child's rights, as I see it, so let's get consistent with the law, which will take the morality out of it and make it a legal, constitutional issue.

What do you think?

 

[Ceicei]

People have tried a similar compromise, using the "test of viability". Even with this, people still disagree. You will always find those people who believes life starts at conception, therefore nullifying any possibility for abortion. My opinion regarding whether a compromise exists? I don't think there is a compromise satisfactory to everyone on both sides of the fence (as well as those who are fence-sitters) on this issue.

- Ceicei

 

[Melissa426]

.

Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it.
What do you think?

I thought I'd heard most of the pro-choice and anti-abortion arguments, but I have honestly never heard anything about fetal brain waves.

I'd like to read up on any research being done on fetal brain waves and how they are detected. Do you know of sources (preferably medical or scientific based) that talk about this?

Thanks,
Melissa

 

[michaeledward]

I think that any woman can come to an appropriate decision on this subject based on her beliefs. What occurs between a woman and her doctor is none of my business.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I've heard of the fetal brain-waves argument before. The basic idea is that we defend human rights because we are beings that are self-aware, capable of abstraction, conceptualization, feelings, etc. For all that, we need brain waves, and something that doesn't display such brain waves would, arguably, not be deserving of human rights. I'm not really trying to defend this position, just giving the interpretation I've heard of it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

We already HAVE a compromise. Nobody gets to impose their beliefs about when human life begins on anybody else; the State can't force you to have an abortion in the interests of something like population control or your proven parental irresponsibility; the State can't force you to remain pregnant.

We already have a compromise. There is no scientific way to tell when human life begins; it's a matter of religious belief and other kinds of belief, and nobody gets to impose their own beliefs on everybody else.

What do I think? I think it's just one more rationalization of the real desire, which is to force women to obey the commands of men, the commands of the Church, the commands of the State. I think it's just one more example of the self-appointed guardians of decency sticking their nose in everybody's private business.

Funny how we never seem to see these snoops marching against violence, or hunger, or lack of medical care, or bad pre-natal care...but boy, let somebody come up with a morning-after pill, and they's all up in our faces.

 

[Tgace]

So as long as its "in the belly" its fair game huh? Where is the "fetus" safe? When the water breaks...when the head crowns....when the whole body is out...when the cord is cut???

Shouldnt there be a line drawn somewhere?

 

[michaeledward]

Shouldnt there be a line drawn somewhere?

The question is who should draw the line?

 

[Cryozombie]

I think that any woman can come to an appropriate decision on this subject based on her beliefs. What occurs between a woman and her doctor is none of my business.

Im impressed...

We are in total agreement for once.

 

[rmcrobertson]

We sure should.

When in the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan launched a retaliatory strike against Libya, and F-111s bombed one of his summer retreats (under the theory he was there--bad intelligence AGAIN) and we killed a year-and-a-half-old baby girl, that was wrong. There's your verdammt line.

It isn't my decision, tgrace. It isn't Mr. Edwards' decision. It damn sure isn't the government's decision (funny how y'all are libertarian, until it's a matter of women's reproductive choices, eh?)--guess what? It's the woman's decision, worked out--how many times does it have to be said? between her, her doctor, and the Great Punta.

Safe, legal, and rare. You wanna militate? Militate for a world in which all children are wanted, and abortion is safe, legal, and rare. Oops, my bad---that would involve social justice. Can't have that. The Free Market, the Pledge of Allegiance, and gun ownership are far too important.

Hell, next thing, them liberals'll get Head Start fully funded. Them bastids.

Otherwise, all you're arguing is a liberal version of Talibanism.

 

[heretic888]

I think the point they were trying to make, Robert, is that what actual meaningful difference is there between, say, an 7-month pre-born and a newly-born infant?? A sheet of skin and blood??

I personally adopt a more moderate/centrist position, in which I am pro-choice... to a point. My personal cut-off is around 5 months (give or take a few weeks), or when the mother's life is in danger. I don't think that's particuarly unreasonable.

The arguments as to "when life begins" are silly. Single-celled organisms are "alive". The human fetus is alive from the very beginning. Hell, the cells in your semen are alive. The cells in the skin you scratch off, and subsequently kill, are "alive".

As for sentience?? Well, I suppose it could be argued that infant sentience begins when brainwave activity starts up... but, honestly?? We don't really have any way of knowing (since the pre-born can't exactly answer questions for us).

Personally, I'm just uncomfortable with abortions that occur past 5 months because of how similar the pre-born is to a human infant... the only real difference is their size.

 

[Darksoul]

-I've always seen abortions as a necessary evil. Simply one that at this time in human existence, bad information, lack of education, and many other things make the situation rather difficult. If the woman wants to have the child, most won't argue with that, unless its a woman who cannot support the child or mooches off the gov't welfare. It does happen. Bringing a child into the world shouldn't be about what a person can get from the gov't and avoid work. Not that it happens all the time. Life is precious, and I believe in keeping it going on this planet. Most people want to have kids for many reasons, the joy of creation, something to pass on, to do better than they did, etc.

-Of course, if the woman doesn't want to have the child...it seems there are many things to look at. What lead up to the woman getting pregnant? Is she really young? Did she even know about the basics? (Don't worry, I'm not counting males out of the equation.) Some people think procreation happens when it happens, and thats just the way it is, and nothing should be done to stop it, and if this woman wants to have ten kids, then the rest of the world should just deal with it. Life doesn't work that way, we all know about dwindling resources and over population.

-If you can support ten kids, raise them all healthy and educated, provide for them financially as long as you see fit, and not create a burden on the rest of the world, you have my blessing. Though if my taxes are going to support your children because you don't want to work, then we have a problem. It should be the woman's decision, and the guy's decision if he is still a part of the relationship, but ultimately the woman's choice. More education about the birds and the bees, please.

A---)

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree with the more education call for some reason. More, I agree with the "head 'em off at the pass," approach.

Otherwise--if you're not the involved party, it ain't none of your damn business. As I wrote previously, it's just another case of guys, libertarian 'till the question of women making their own decisions comes up.

 

[Xequat]

I'm sorry, but about half of the country thinks it is ourr business. Just like it's our business when somebody climbs a clock tower and starts shooting. Killing is killing. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent with our laws. The law states that human life ends when the brain waves stop, so I was just suggesting that the law state that human life begins when the brain waves start. It can be measured whether the being is sentient or not. If we ge consistent, then we won't need special rules like illegal partial-birth abortions and the like. Ther can still be pro-life rallies and organizations and preventive eductaion prframs, but the law should be secular. Some think that it's an issue between the woman and the doctor; others thnk it's an issue between the baby human life and the state. So let's find a middle ground where neither side is happy, but neither side is upset so we can stop hearing the same arguments about it every election year.

 

[michaeledward]

Xequat, you need to check your math. The number "half our country" is grossly exaggerated, I think you will find a large majority are pro-choice. Many of that majority will have some reservations about termination as a pregnacy comes to term, but are not willing to surrender the first principle for the second.

I recently heard the discussion termed as 'Moral Equivilancy'; when does the fetus gain the moral equivilancy to a human being (which brings us back to the original brain wave argument). Is a fetus with brain waves, the equivilant of human being in the hospital with brain waves. I do not agree that the fetus is morally equivilant to a born child.

I am trying to understand how some can believe that a human sperm cell, fertilizing a human egg cell in a petri dish is morally equivilant to a human being? Which is the arguement against stem cell research.

 

[Melissa426]

The law states that human life ends when the brain waves stop, so I was just suggesting that the law state that human life begins when the brain waves start. It can be measured whether the being is sentient or not. If we ge consistent, then we won't need special rules like illegal partial-birth abortions and the like. Ther can still be pro-life rallies and organizations and preventive eductaion prframs, but the law should be secular. Some think that it's an issue between the woman and the doctor; others thnk it's an issue between the baby human life and the state. So let's find a middle ground where neither side is happy, but neither side is upset so we can stop hearing the same arguments about it every election year.

Regarding your original premise:

1: I did a short web search on fetal brain waves and 95% of what I found was from anti-abortion groups. Their's is not exactly an objective opinion.

2. What results I did find, all the researchers mentioned how technically difficult it is to detect fetal brain waves, at first they had trouble eliminating electrical background activity from the mother's cardiac activity. Even so, this is all very preliminary and possibly premature to state that just because a fetus has brainwaves it can be considered "alive." How anyone can compare this to the situation of declaring a person to be declared brain dead is beyond me.

3. This issue is too polarizing for there ever to be an acceptable "compromise" from either side. I am just not sure that that is a good idea.

Peace,
Melissa


As an aside:

In Memory of Carrie:
This past week, a former patient at the hospital I work at died from a cardiac condition. She was 27 y.o. and had 2 children , ages 3 and 6. One year ago, she found out she was pregnant. Her doctor told her there was an 80% chance she would die during pregnancy because of her cardiac problems. She agonized over it, but proceeded with the termination because of her other two children needing her. She died awaiting a heart transplant.

Please make sure your organ donor cards are signed!

 

[Xequat]

Thank you, Melissa, for a relevant response. So far, the only things people have written have been pro-abortion advertisements, but did not address the idea of compromise. It's the kind of one-sided, narrow-minded approach that I feel requires a compromise. So, although we might disagree about whether a compromise makes sense, or is even reasonable or possible, I can at least respect that you addressed the question at hand. I know, some people think it's just another example of a paranoid delusion that The Man is trying to keep a woman down ("What do I think? I think it's just one more rationalization of the real desire, which is to force women to obey the commands of men, the commands of the Church, the commands of the State. I think it's just one more example of the self-appointed guardians of decency sticking their nose in everybody's private business.") but whether you believe that or not, it doesn't apply. The question was not "What do you thnk about abortion?" The question was about meeting in the middle on an issue that divides the country. The point of a compromise is not to make either side happy, but to make both sides, shall we say, content.


"When in the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan launched a retaliatory strike against Libya, and F-111s bombed one of his summer retreats (under the theory he was there--bad intelligence AGAIN) and we killed a year-and-a-half-old baby girl, that was wrong. There's your verdammt line."
A year and a half is your line, Robert? Stay on topic, and please do not launch into another string of anti-capitalism; it jsut doesn't fit in here on a thread about abortion, even though you might think that it's the root of all evil in the US.

So sorry to hear about Carrie. Thanks for the reminder, though about organ donation. I'll ask the wife if hers is signed...mine is.

 

[Flatlander]

What is the current legislation on the subject?

The question was not "What do you thnk about abortion?" The question was about meeting in the middle on an issue that divides the country. The point of a compromise is not to make either side happy, but to make both sides, shall we say, content.

How do you feel that your proposition accomplishes the "compromise of making each side content"? I don't see it.

 

[TonyM.]

I think abortion rights should be retroactive. Anyone want to call John or W's mom?

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Glad to hear the rousing chorus of, "Every Sperm Is Sacred."

2. Wrote nothing about capitalism. Wrote about so-called, "pro-lifers," who see nothing wrong about taking life when they feel it's necessary, and have no apologies about killing baby girls provided they're enemy baby girls.

3. Always enjoy the attempt to define the argument in ways that guarantee one's own side wins. Nope, sorry, it is well within the parameters of the original topic of this thread to say that we already have a compromise...it's just a compromise that one side doesn't want to live with, a compromise that's endangered by a side that wants things all its own way. How do I know? Easy. When you describe the other side as, "pro-abortion," you give the game away. I realize this'll have no effect, but let's try: NOBODY IS PRO-ABORTION. They're pro-choice--you know, in favor of deciding for themselves only, so nobody gets to impose their beliefs on anybody else?

4. Always enjoy it when folks whose argument is religious and moral try to invent scientific reasons (he must be scientific! he said, "brain waves!!!") for their positions. No, brain waves schmain waves : we cannot measure when sentient life begins, or ends, except in science fiction. This is a good strong reason that we presently have the compromise that we have: Roe v. Wade basically rests on the idea that since this is fundamentally a religious decision, one side does not get to impose its religious beliefs on everybody else. Oh and incidentally: the Harvard Criteria for death, which rely on cessation of real EEG activity, together with the disappearance of spontaneous respiration and regular heartbeat/EKG activity, are primarily legal definitions.

5. I repeat: we already HAVE a compromise. Some men (and yes, I mean men) simply want things all their own way--particularly repugnant, since it means forcing women to do what you want them to do. The guff about "science," about, "four months vs. five months," etc., it's just a smokescreen. Come clean: you don't want any sort of compromise, you want it yer own way. Always the same--there there, little lady, lemme help you with these difficult choices...oh, by the way, make sure you get a job soon, because we damn sure aren't going to be offering you any actual help.

6. If you REALLY want to limit abortion, quit being hasty, lazy and dictatorial. Work for social justice; work for decent education; work for improved living conditions. Hell, work for Planned Parenthood, and improve women's access to contraception, as well as throwing out that ridiculous, "abstinence-only," sex education requirements forced down educators' throats by dim-wit ideologues, and do something about our current Prez's ban on family planning help worldwide.

7. But no, right? Much easier to try and force one's religious beliefs down everybody's throats. Much easier to Taliban the whole thing...and it does avoid that messy social diversity thing altogether.