Abortion compromise...what do you think?

RandomPhantom700 said:
This is pointless. My apologies for taking up room on the thread. Continue.
Click to expand...
Don't despair, Random. You've only given it 1 1/2 hours from when you posed yr original question. Some people haven't even seen yr post yet, nevermind had a chance to formulate a thoughtful response.

What reply were you hoping to get? Any poster can only answer with their own best interpretation of the situation. And my interpretation might be different than yours.

I am genuinely curious what point you were hoping to get to. To change someone's mind, to show someone who their thinking erred, to clarify yr own understanding, some other possibility I haven't considered?

[I feel very limited by the medium here. Anyone could read these words as challenging & agressive, but that isn't how they are meant. In my own mind, I'm quietly asking questions, trying to be considerate. But how does one accurately reflect that in their posts? It's a constant challenge.]
 
The question I was trying to ask was what differentiates an unborn fetus from the two people I described regarding rights and status as a human. This, last time I checked, was teh whole reason for the inquiry about brain waves. Instead, I am given obvious responses such as a "fetus can't walk down the street". That doesn't answer whether it deserves rights or not; before he died, Christopher Reeves couldn't "walk" down the street either.

So, I guess that's it.
 
KT:

I didnt mean to imply that either the woman or the street walker actually did deserve death. Just using them as examples where someone decided that, for whatever reason, it was their decision that the victim die, and society stepped in to say "no, you can't do that" quite legitimately.
 
Well I believe Xequat's intention in posting the topic was wondering if brain waves could help resolve the conflict between the opposing sides of the abortion/rights debate. And I would suggest that this thread is evidence that no consensus will be reached anytime soon.
 
Feisty Mouse said:
It is tissue that is genetically human. Humans are a species designation. When is it an individual person? I would say when it (can or does) survive outside of the mother's body.
Click to expand...

Again...how far? Crowning, head out, body out, cord cut? Where is the "magic point" where the mother cant decide to abort anymore? Or more accurately "shouldnt" be allowed by law....theoretically, Im aware of the current law. Just trying to see where the more "pro-choice" view is on the subject.
 
With all due respect, I think yr being a little silly about this, tgace.

Personally, I would say once you are in labour, it's definately too late to get an abortion. You would have to deliver at that point anyways, whether the fetus is alive or not (you've heard of stillborns, right?).

Which is not to say that I believe everything up to there is free game. But it's first not-completely-arbitrary point to make the cut-off that I've heard that I can feel okay about.
 
And I don't think you can say there is ONE pro-choice view point on this.
 
raedyn said:
With all due respect, I think yr being a little silly about this, tgace.
Click to expand...
I do not think Tgace is being silly. He is trying to push the issue to a breaking point. He wants the 'Pro-Choice' crowd to say that a fetus may be aborted up to the point the umbilical cord separates the the two organisms.

He wants the extreme example, to justify opposition to the less extreme examples.

He is not satisfied with allowing a woman making a decision, with the participation of her doctor, about the morality involved.

This is how the Anti-Choice people have successfully argued against 'Intact Dilation and Extraction'. It is a proceedure that can be described as barbaric and gruesome. But at times, barbaric and gruesome actions are appropriate. By the way, this particular proceedure was also very rare; reportedly 0.2% of all abortions in the United States.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intact%20dilation%20and%20extraction
 
The extreme anti-abortion people often try and characterize this procedure as what all abortions are.
 
michaeledward said:
He wants the extreme example, to justify opposition to the less extreme examples.
Click to expand...
If X is not okay, then Y is not okay?
This is what we call a non-sequitur. Literallly - it does not follow.

and yeah, I'm guessing that's what tgace is getting at. But maybe we should let him speak for himself. Tgace? Are you nearby?
 
There is a point during the final trimester of pregnancy when the fetus can live, albeit with medical/mechanical help, outside of the womb. That's what preemies do.

I believe the dilation and extraction reference is to partial-birth abortions, no? I agree it's barbaric in the extreme, and, as a mother, I cannot condone such things with my emotional side. HOWEVER. Depending upon the circumstances necessitating this be done... I cry for the women who must have this procedure.

Becoming a mother is supposed to be a wonderful experience. I sat with a friend of mine in a local luncheonette this afternoon and watched the parade of beautiful little girls and boys go by. My friend has a five year old girl who is beyond gorgeous; we both sighed watching these little ones. I, because like my friend, I am too old to have a child any longer. My friend, because her daughter wants a little sister or brother.

That is a major downside to aborting a pregnancy: what could be. Another is women who cannot conceive and desperately want a child. Adoption is difficult in this country. Why make it near impossible if there are people who want these children and there are pregnant women who don't want them?

I'm thinking aloud. Guys, take it. I await your answers.
 
Adoption is NOT that difficult, if you want a baby who isn't white, or one who has disabilities, or an older child. In fact, THAT is the question you ask the people who are anti-choice: how many kids have you adopted?

BTW, yes, I've worked in a neonatal ICU. I think it's absolutely disgraceful to pat ourselves on the back for doing such a great job "surviving" these babies, and then handing a new mother a child with EXTREME needs, when she may not have the resources to take care of the child. Especially if the demands of caring for this baby prevent her from working...not that most jobs offer health insurance today anyway. Not to imply that all premies are very damaged...but I digress.
 
Tgace said:
Again...how far? Crowning, head out, body out, cord cut? Where is the "magic point" where the mother cant decide to abort anymore? Or more accurately "shouldnt" be allowed by law....theoretically, Im aware of the current law. Just trying to see where the more "pro-choice" view is on the subject.
Click to expand...
What?

I mean, what now?

Again, you are asking for me - or someone else - to dictate to all other women when an abortion is OK and when it is not.

When a woman is in labor, she has already decided, for better or worse, to bear the child, and is really concerned with just getting through the process.

If a woman decides/needs to have an abortion in the third trimester - into the "age of viability", where technically a preemie can survive outside of the womb with serious ICU intervention - then again, she and her doctor(s) need to have a very serious discussion about the situation. I am not going to say when she can and cannot, because every situation is different. Some medical concern may have developed or have been missed earlier on in the pregnancy which will affect the mother's survival, future fertility, etc.

I'm sure you're trying to get at the "partial-birth abortion" thing, which drives me mental, because that conjures up the image of exactly what you are portraying - a fickle, silly woman, mid-labor, deciding, "Oh, wait, maybe I *don't* want this baby", which is quite frankly ridiculous.
 
kenpo tiger said:
I believe the dilation and extraction reference is to partial-birth abortions, no?
Click to expand...
Correct, except, I would phrase it the opposite way. 'Partial birth abortion' is the Pro-Life camp's name for dilation and extraction; also known in medical circles as D&X. The medical term is 'intact dilation and extraction'.
 
What I would like defined is this "the right to choose until the fetus is born/a separate entity" issue. Where is that point crossed? Its a THEORETICAL question.

If killing a fetus/baby in the process of birth is wrong/illegal (should it be, thats what I keep asking but nobody wants to make a statement one way or the other), what about hours before birth, days, weeks? How far back do you go? The "medical emergency" point keeps being used as a screen to avoid just outright giving an opinion. There are always legal ways to do what is otherwise illegal. Like killing in self-defense, damaging property to save lives..its called exigent circumstance. As Ive previously stated, Im not entirely against abortion but I believe there should be a legal limit minus medical emergency. I know there is a current legal limit but the topic here is should that limit be changed. Do you all agree with the current limit or is that even too much governmental control.

The "that will never happen" statement is probably true, but one thing Ive learned about people is that they are capable of anything. There have been cases of people who have killed pregnant women and cut the children out of them for gods sake. Never say never when it comes to human behavior. Should Scott Peterson face 2 charges of murder? Should some psycho do the unimaginable (I wont even describe it) but leave the mother alive and otherwise unharmed...murder? Where should the legal definition of "human life" be? I dont think its an unreasonable question. If I were a rabid "pro-life" supporter I would say it begins at conception (which my church does) but I dont. Ive stated my abortion stance before and I find it odd that Im beginning to be labelled "anti-choice". Is it "all or nothing" on that issue too? We all have choices that are societaly limited by law.
 
I have made statements. But lets look at a definition.
Here is a definition from the Maine Health and Welfare department, and it is as good as any to use. (This was the first hit on google).

"Live born" and "live birth," as used in this chapter, shall mean a product of conception after complete expulsion or extraction from its mother, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born and fully recognized as a human person under Maine law. [font=courier, fixed] [1977, c. 696, § 186 (new).][/font]

Up until the child is born, whether it is right or wrong to terminate a pregnancy, is a decision that should be left to the mother, her conciousness and her doctor. If they are in agreement that the pregnancy should be terminated in the second before birth. It is their decision.
Until that 'complete expulsion' and that 'evidence of life' is demonstrated, the moral responsibility is not society's.
 
michaeledward said:
I have made statements. But lets look at a definition.
Here is a definition from the Maine Health and Welfare department, and it is as good as any to use. (This was the first hit on google).

"Live born" and "live birth," as used in this chapter, shall mean a product of conception after complete expulsion or extraction from its mother, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born and fully recognized as a human person under Maine law. [font=courier, fixed][1977, c. 696, § 186 (new).][/font]

Up until the child is born, whether it is right or wrong to terminate a pregnancy, is a decision that should be left to the mother, her conciousness and her doctor. If they are in agreement that the pregnancy should be terminated in the second before birth. It is their decision.
Until that 'complete expulsion' and that 'evidence of life' is demonstrated, the moral responsibility is not society's.
Click to expand...
'Complete explusion'?! Yee gads. What did that fetus do -- talk in class? Not listen? Sometimes legal terminology can be so, odd. I don't consider the two live and one still births I've had 'expulsions', although technically the latter might be considered such.
 
So I guess that the Maine legislature's decision that a born child is a human, as opposed to what it was the day before birth, makes the decision for all of us.
 
RandomPhantom700 said:
So I guess that the Maine legislature's decision that a born child is a human, as opposed to what it was the day before birth, makes the decision for all of us.
Click to expand...
Just for clarification RandomPhantom700, before the 'live birth', it is a fetus. This is not a designation from the state of Maine, it is the scientific term.
 
kenpo tiger said:
'Complete explusion'?! Yee gads. What did that fetus do -- talk in class? Not listen? Sometimes legal terminology can be so, odd. I don't consider the two live and one still births I've had 'expulsions', although technically the latter might be considered such.
Click to expand...
Concerning the terminology, I agree, Ms. tiger ... I don't know that I would choose such language.

But some were pushing for a succint definition of where the "LINE" is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Mutiny in Iraq!

Previous Thread

MTV's Rock The Vote

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top