Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[loki09789]

But, primarily, that *is* the issue - what a woman has the right to do with her own body. I realize there are more complexities to it, but that is the main issue. I'm not so sure that, if a man could become pregnant for 38-40 weeks and carry a growing weight in, say, a testicle, or his intestinal cavity, that he would be as concerned as to what another person wanted. Pregnancy and birth is a huge process that changes your physiology forever.

That might be at the core of your stance on this issue, and others as well, but the idea is when/whether an unborn child is recongized as a stand alone, legally identifiable individual child that needs to be recongized by the law in order to be protected - sometimes against the mother herself.

We are at the basic division and the 'apples/oranges' point of the abortion issue. On one side you have people who are primarily motivated by the woman's rights and on the other you have people who are primarily motivated by the preservation/recognition/legal identity of the child/fetus in an unborn state.

Until people are 'on the same sheet of music' it isn't going to be resolved - ever. I have heard women called 'selfish' for choosing abortion. I have heard women called 'irresponsible' for getting pregnant (if unplanned) and not aborting it.

It is amazing how simple word choice can say so much - and yet get so over looked.

IF the point is that the child has rights (at what ever recognized point), that the woman has rights AND that the father should (though we tend to get demonized or ignored for the most part on this issue) have rights...how far should the law go to 'infringe' on any of these individual civil liberties for the sake of preserving/protecting life?

 

[michaeledward]

So its up to women to each decide if the fetus is a "person" or not?

Close, but not quite there yet, I think.

It is up to each woman to decide if the fetus is the 'moral equivalent' of a "person".

 

[Tgace]

Close, but not quite there yet, I think.

It is up to each woman to decide if the fetus is the 'moral equivalent' of a "person".

Where else in our society does one segment of the population have such a luxury? I meet plenty of people who I dont believe fit the definition either.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

There's something troubling for me of leaving the question of whether a fetus counts as a person up to each individual to decide. When we're talking about the existence of rights, I don't think it should just be left up to whoever is involved's arbitrary distinctions. However, that's about as clear as I can explain my dilemma for now, so with no other means of ending this sentence, I'll take a bow. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

I have to say, this has been one of the most calm discussions about abortion I've ever witnessed. I'm impressed with everyone here.

Too bad everybody else cant do the same. Its the only way (IMHO) people are ever going to reach mutual understanding. Once the yelling starts, the minds close.

 

[michaeledward]

Where else in our society does one segment of the population have such a luxury?

Church
The Governor's office

 

[Feisty Mouse]

So its up to women to each decide if the fetus is a "person" or not?

OK, this is the way I see that. Each fetus is *potential*. If a miscarriage happens, for example, which is a tragedy for an expectant mom/expectant couple, was there an individual that was lost? Is mom in trouble with the state now?

Until the child is surviving outside of the mother's body, it is potential. It is up to each pregnant woman to weigh what she believes - is it a person? Is it an effect from some traumatic event? Is it a responsibility she does not have the resources to handle?

But I don't think it's a decision of "is this a person or not". If a woman believes she is carrying another person, I highly doubt she'll abort, but will choose to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.

When the fetus starts to kind of look like a "person" is relatively late in the game, anyways. If most abortions occur in the first trimester, what is developing inside the mother does not look like a child, and I think that makes a difference for some people when engaged in a debate like this.

RP700 - Roger.

 

[loki09789]

OK, this is the way I see that. Each fetus is *potential*. If a miscarriage happens, for example, which is a tragedy for an expectant mom/expectant couple, was there an individual that was lost? Is mom in trouble with the state now?

Until the child is surviving outside of the mother's body, it is potential. It is up to each pregnant woman to weigh what she believes - is it a person? Is it an effect from some traumatic event? Is it a responsibility she does not have the resources to handle?

But I don't think it's a decision of "is this a person or not". If a woman believes she is carrying another person, I highly doubt she'll abort, but will choose to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.

When the fetus starts to kind of look like a "person" is relatively late in the game, anyways. If most abortions occur in the first trimester, what is developing inside the mother does not look like a child, and I think that makes a difference for some people when engaged in a debate like this.

RP700 - Roger.

Does anyone know where their state or the Fed law draws the line currently? I sure don't in any accurate detail.

 

[kenpo tiger]

I suppose one could make a case for a fetus being considered a baby when it reaches the point in its development where it could survive outside of the womb.

How anyone could possibly say that a woman is being selfish when she decides to abort a pregnancy is beyond my comprehension. Whatever brought the woman to that decision is none of anyone else's business unless she chooses to share her thought process with her husband/partner. Is it indeed better to bring a child into a household where it can't be supported emotionally or financially? Where do you think the abused children of this world live? Not everyone has a nanny to care for the children they may have. But that's another issue entirely, so...

Men should have a say in whether a child is to come into the family to the extent that is is usually their responsibility to provide financially for the child's well-being. They do not usually stay at home with the child, care for the child when he or she becomes ill, sits with and comforts the child when she/he can't sleep, and so on. There are always exceptions, but I am speaking generally for the sake of discussion. Anyway, that is why the woman's opinion carries a bit more weight. She's the one with the major responsibility - not to mention being class mommie, den mommie, driver, doctor, psychiatrist, teacher, disciplinarian, etc.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Kind and reasonable by nature. :asian:

Dan, You are too kind to us, as always.

 

[Tgace]

Until the child is surviving outside of the mother's body, it is potential.

How far out?

 

[pete]

Is it indeed better to bring a child into a household where it can't be supported emotionally or financially? Where do you think the abused children of this world live? Not everyone has a nanny to care for the children they may have.

so is this now an argument for social engineering?

Men should have a say in whether a child is to come into the family to the extent that is is usually their responsibility to provide financially for the child's well-being. They do not usually stay at home with the child, care for the child when he or she becomes ill, sits with and comforts the child when she/he can't sleep, and so on. There are always exceptions, but I am speaking generally for the sake of discussion.

that type of generality reeks of stereotyping...

Anyway, that is why the woman's opinion carries a bit more weight. She's the one with the major responsibility - not to mention being class mommie, den mommie, driver, doctor, psychiatrist, teacher, disciplinarian, etc.

>>>>, i know you know better than this and that you do not hold such biases based on gender, race, or religion...

pete.

 

[kenpo tiger]

so is this now an argument for social engineering?



that type of generality reeks of stereotyping...



, i know you know better than this and that you do not hold such biases based on gender, race, or religion...

pete.

Pete, It's true that I normally do not hold biases. In fact, you also know how I feel about children in general (and my little kenpo angels specifically), so you should realize that my statements are for sake of discussion.

You've also brought me *out* by using my real name. Now *they* all know it... :xtrmshock

 

[pete]

You've also brought me *out* by using my real name. Now *they* all know it... :xtrmshock

its gone, but you'll have to edit your message quoting me... so unless *they* are watching, you can resume your anonimity... sorry! pete.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

How far out?

What?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

so is this now an argument for social engineering?



that type of generality reeks of stereotyping...



>>>>, i know you know better than this and that you do not hold such biases based on gender, race, or religion...

pete.

Speaking for myself...

This is not a social engineering or eugenics movement. That's why each woman gets to choose. Some women choose to have their child even if they are in dire financial straits - and then are labelled "welfare queens" and are considered the scourge of society. Some women in the same situation would choose not to have the child, especially if they had no access to good prenatal care.

When other people step in and say, "You should have this baby, and you (other person) should not", that is becoming something what you might be referring to by "social engineering".

Just because the majority of primary caregivers in this country - and around the world - are women, that's a stereotype? I think KT made it clear she was making a generalization.

 

[raedyn]

Does anyone know where their state or the Fed law draws the line currently? I sure don't in any accurate detail.

re: USA
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, recognized abortion as a right under the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy the state cannot bar any woman from obtaining an abortion from a licensed physician. During the second trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure only to protect the woman’s health.174 In the third trimester the state may regulate to protect fetal life, but not at the expense of the woman’s life or health."
from http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#61

of course, although the government doesn't technically bar a woman from getting an abortion in the first trimester
- the feds won't pay for it, even if it was as a result of rape or incest
- they can't be performed at public hospitals
- minors must have the consent of their parents

 

[kenpo tiger]

Feisty,

Thanks for the support *tiger hugs*.

Pete knows me well enough to realize it was a generalization. He was just clarifying it for himself. (I think you had fish for dinner Monday...)

I think tgace's question refers to how far out from the birthdate is a fetus considered viable -- or maybe, when an embryo is considered a fetus. As I stated earlier, I have only a general idea of when that is, and, not being a scientist, I hesitate to posit any hard and fast time.

I don't believe that that should be a deciding factor. There are too many other things which can crop up during a pregnancy and require medical intervention.

Now there's an interesting concept. What if medical intervention is required? How heroic should the efforts be to save the fetus? Does 'taking' the fetus early constitute aborting a pregnancy, since it's removing the fetus from the mother's womb?

 

[loki09789]

Feisty,

Thanks for the support *tiger hugs*.

Pete knows me well enough to realize it was a generalization. He was just clarifying it for himself. (I think you had fish for dinner Monday...)

I think tgace's question refers to how far out from the birthdate is a fetus considered viable -- or maybe, when an embryo is considered a fetus. As I stated earlier, I have only a general idea of when that is, and, not being a scientist, I hesitate to posit any hard and fast time.

I don't believe that that should be a deciding factor. There are too many other things which can crop up during a pregnancy and require medical intervention.

Now there's an interesting concept. What if medical intervention is required? How heroic should the efforts be to save the fetus? Does 'taking' the fetus early constitute aborting a pregnancy, since it's removing the fetus from the mother's womb?

Along those lines of the 'when and where' do you draw the line, the implication of scientific development and its impact on morals/social trends is well illustrated with this discussion. We can't ignore the influence that being able to identify the when and where the developmental indicators of 'becoming human' happen in the birth process will have on social views and morallity. It challenges religous based values to be more codified/specified in response or adaptation to it...and even specification is an adaptation in itself...uh oh I gave myself a head ache again.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

- that made me smile.