Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Tgace]

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.

So If the "fetus" is removed via C-Section 1 week prior to its due date and lives, its a "live birth"...if it stays inside and has to wait until natural birth its still subject to (theoretical) abortion? I just think the logic, while understandable in terms of trying to make some sort of distinction, has a flaw in it.

 

[Flatlander]

Well, certainly the logic has a flaw in it, Tom. The entire subject is flawed. There can be no "middle compromise" here, and that is evidenced by the arguments we're reading. Most are supportive of the woman's right to choose what happens with her body. Most who support this agree that once the "organism" in question is external to that body, it has become an individual. Most are in agreement that an abortion 39 weeks into gestation is abhorrent, and not something they want to really think about, however, once you have given a woman the right to her body, how can we then define some point at which it can be taken away?

The beginning of this thread was a proposition that perhaps the definition of individual entity in terms of human right to life could be revised to coincide with the emergence of brainwaves. I respectfully submit here that this isn't logically valid, for the following reasons.

1) Though brainwaves can be detected, this is no clear indication of self awareness.
2) Though brainwaves are detected, the fetus still requires the uterus in order to survive.
3) Though brainwaves are detected, there is no evidence to suggest that the activity holds any meaning; this could simply be the bits that tell other bits how to grow.
4) In the context of these ideas, it still remains a) an arbitrary line in the sand, and b) an attempt to take the choice away from the woman, regardless of whether or not that is the intent.

So, in closing, no, I do not believe that the brainwave argument is a step forward in human rights, in defining an appropriate framework for decision making, or rigorous enough in proof to serve as a platform for a re-writing of law.

 

[Tgace]

Most who support this agree that once the "organism" in question is external to that body, it has become an individual. Most are in agreement that an abortion 39 weeks into gestation is abhorrent, and not something they want to really think about, however, once you have given a woman the right to her body, how can we then define some point at which it can be taken away?

Yeah I suppose youre right. The subject just has so many debatable issues all over it. My wife (who has had 3 so far) is my best source on the subject and we discuss it every once and a while. Shes kind of in line with my view (shes even more "pro-life" on the stance than I am). The whole "her body" statement...when is the fetus different from her liver? My wife likes to say her body never kicked her in the bladder before. Its obvious that the fetus is a separate entity that is dependant on the mothers body. What about adults on life support? They are dependant on another for life as well. Im not being flippant, philosophically I think there are a lot of things that are debateable.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I had a grand-uncle--worked hard as a blacksmith, yessiree bob--his whole life. He said--Royal was his name, Royal Erasmus Ronertson--that his liver kicked him all the time.

'Course, coulda been the Old Overholt. Grand-uncle Royal, he had him a fondness for rye whiskey.

And he allus said, he said, "Bobby, don't never let no damn guv-mint tell you what you can do with your own internal organs."

'Course, I 'spect that only applies to men...

 

[heretic888]

Yee haw. :-B

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm..at least "most" of the people who disagree with me have the courtesy to actually discuss and post their points....

Criticize Early and Often

Always make sure to be the caustic critic. Let's face it: There isn't enough complaining in this world. There's too much Pollyanna-ish cheer and frivolity. Too many people just smile and let things go. Don't go along with them. There's something wrong with everything and everyone if you look closely enough, and by golly, you have to make it your job to find it first and complain about it loudest.
Let's take some easy examples: Your wife might look pretty good when she's setting out on her first day of work, but is every single, solitary hair in its place? Let her know that she doesn't look perfect enough. Don't let her get away with not looking her best. And maybe she's gained a bit of weight. Tell her that you've noticed those extra pounds. Make sure you point it all out. After all, you're just being constructive.
Your husband used up most of his Saturday mowing the lawn? Fine, but how about putting in some new plants to give the yard some color! Let him have it why should he have any chance to relax? Get him out there working while you lounge in front of the TV. Your son did well in his last soccer game? Okay, but he missed two goals that looked easy to you. Why let him off the hook? Why let anyone off easy? Your daughter is doing great at gymnastics? Well, if she's so great, why didn't she get the gold medal at the last meet? She must have screwed up in some way. Let her know you that you've been paying attention, and criticize her until she sobs in frustration. That should make her do better next time.
What's the point of your being the world's most gifted observer and critic if you end up wasting all of your special talents and let people slide by? Spare the criticism and you spoil the wife (or husband or child or employee or friend or whatever). The whole world needs to know that they're far from perfect. They can't just go about lollygagging and thinking they're doing fine. They need help—just as surely as you don't need it.
You're the important one, the perfect one, and people have to pay attention to what you say. The world is a crappy place anyway, right? Laying withering criticism on every situation assures that everyone knows you're in charge and everyone is lucky that you are!

(excerpt from "How to Ruin Your Life" by Ben Stein, Hay House Inc. 2002)

 

[rmcrobertson]

I had this here aunt--Great Aunt Reena, she was--and she smoked that Algerian hashhish a lot....ran a psychic service, read palms...and Great Aunt Reena, she looked into that there crystal ball late one night, and she said to me, she said, "Bobby, don't let none of them uptime people throw that there damn psychobabble at ye and confuse ye none. I see in your future that you be a-disagreeing with people over women's rights, and some of them guys will completely skip over your arguments and evidence cause they ain't got none of their own. Hell, some of 'em will get all het up about Freud's insigts into the symptomatic nature of men's discourse, not to mention Neil Hertz's analysis of male hysteria under political pressure. Why, shoot, some of 'em will try to convince ye that if you argue that abortion and the whole spectrum of reproductive rights for women ought properly to be decided by women and not enforced by men, you're the one who's being self-centered. Now run along and play with this copy of Lasch's 'Culture of Narcississm' and let your tired great-aunt get prettied up. She got a date with that hottie Nostradamus later, the stars foretell."

 

[michaeledward]

Most are in agreement that an abortion 39 weeks into gestation is abhorrent, and not something they want to really think about, however, once you have given a woman the right to her body, how can we then define some point at which it can be taken away?

Flatlander, I am wondering if you have the premise backwards. You said ... 'once you have given a woman the right to her body' ... I kinda think a woman has the right to her body, and society can only act to take that right away.

 

[Flatlander]

OK Mr. Pickypants. Should have read "Given that a woman has.....blah, blah, away?"

 

[michaeledward]

OK Mr. Pickypants. Should have read "Given that a woman has.....blah, blah, away?"

Pickypants ... Pickypants ... who are YOU callin' Pickypants
<chuckle>

 

[raedyn]

so what do we do when a MOD starts the name calling?

 

[Rich Parsons]

so what do we do when a MOD starts the name calling?

If you think it is serious and not playing around, then you still hit the red triangle with "!" and report the post.

Or send a PM note to another moderator or super moderator or admin.


:asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Or if you don't want to bother the moderators about it, you could just give the person bad rep points. That's what the little scale icon is for.

 

[kenpo tiger]

I think Robertson is simply too wrapped up in his work, that's all. Channeling deceased relatives, while entertaining at times, isn't all it's cracked up to be...

Dan, Glad to see your original avatar. Always thought it was one of the best here.

The argument about the fetus kicking got me thinking. Could be just a reaction, like a spasm, but it does kind of pre-suppose something determining that it should happen (like brain waves). But, as Dan also pointed out, could be other things. We could go around and around about this point as well. Someone else (sorry - I read the posts with such interest I bolted directly to reply) stated that we've all come to a few conclusions about a woman's right to have a safe, legal abortion, but the original premise hasn't been satisfied. Xequat, who I believe instigated all of this, is among the missing as well. So, what's the conclusion here? Can/should a cut-off date be imposed?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

As far as I understand it, quickening (when mom feels fetal movement - at first, I am told, a fluttery feeling) occurs at about 17 weeks post-fert. Actually, the fetus begins moving in utero befor mom can detect the movements. It's generally thought that these are reflexive movements as the muscles and nervous system differentiate and develop. This statement is not meant to undermine the importance of quickening for an expectant mother, since I am told it is an emotional and bonding time.

 

[rmcrobertson]

That's dead IMAGINARY relatives, thank you very much.

But they're mine to have or discard, part of my private little world. Funny how folks accept that, but not a woman's right to choose: to me the interesting question, and the one that needs examining, is why that should be.

And no, I don't think it's a simple matter of, "concern for the unborn."

 

[heretic888]

And no, I don't think it's a simple matter of, "concern for the unborn."

So, Robert, would you say that "concern for the unborn" has nothing to do with the debates at all?? Or, is it solely, exclusively, completely a matter of patriarchal powerplays??

I'm inclined to the "both/and" category, not so much the "either/or".

 

[rmcrobertson]

Pretty much. Sky-god worship, notions of him make men's mission protect weak women, fantasies of identity, projections of self-hood onto the insentient, refusal to accept compromise, etc.

See good essay by Barbara Johnson, "Metaphor, Metonymy and Abortion," available in collection, "A World of Difference."

 

[heretic888]

Pretty much. Sky-god worship, notions of him make men's mission protect weak women, fantasies of identity, projections of self-hood onto the insentient, refusal to accept compromise, etc.

Okay.

But, what about instances where the pro-lifers are women?? Or atheists??

 

[rmcrobertson]

Exactly the same....and I've yet to hear from somebody who was an atheist and anti-choice, though my offhand guess would be that they're probably still channelling the old sky-god worship thing...flip side of the same coin, don't ya know.