This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Here
is a video where a doctor explains the abortion procedures, and shows an ultrasound video of an abortion being performed (not late term), with the baby rearing its back in pain, flailing its arms, and trying to get away, as the suction tube beats him/her to death.
It's really
graphic
, and I nearly threw up.
If you have a weak stomach, I wouldn't suggest you watch it.
Post by
Azazel
Uhh, hi.
I think abortion should be the choice of the parents and noone else.
Could you explain why you believe this?
Sure. I think it should be up to them to decide according to their beliefs and/or faith. Personally, I'm completely neutral on this subject. It's not something I'll decide is right or wrong unless I am put in that situation. I believe the parents, not the government, not the local church, synagoge or mosque or whatever, should be the one to tell them what to do.
It's the parents' choice, imo. People shouldn't try to raise others' kids because they don't agree with them. Unless the kids are neonazi murderers or something, obviously.
Post by
OverZealous
I don't want to get into philosophical questions (define life? Really?) or questions of right and wrong here, but I just thought I'd jump in and mention
What changes at 23 weeks that makes the lump of flesh into a living human being with rights?
I've read of cases (the sources are swedish, but I can link them if you so desire - translation tools could probably help if you find it necessary) where babies have been brought out of their mother's womb (for one reason or another) and lived by week 22 or week 23. Before that, I believe the baby/fetus does not possess the capabilities to survive without the nourishment that it is provided inside the mother's womb. It simply is not ready, physically, to live yet. I don't think that any drastic changes occur once week 23 is reached, but it is a set number because the line has to be drawn somewhere - it happens to be at the point where the baby
might
(really want to stress the "might" here) survive.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@OZ- but, based on your argument, wouldn't it also be allowed then for a parent to kill a disabled 2 year old, or 5 year old, or 10 year old, if they were on some kind of special machinery to keep them alive? I mean, lets say a child is born with deformities in the digestive tract that make it impossible for them to survive without continuing artificial support to compensate for what they were receiving in the womb? If the parent doesn't pay to provide these medical services, the child will die. Or, on a broader level, newborn babies, if left in the wild to defend themselves, would die. They are clearly not physically able to live without this outside source of constant care. If the right to life is based on whether or not someone could survive without being sustained by the parent, aren't there a lot of kids who would be able to be "aborted" pretty much up until grade school?
Personally (not sure if I have commented here before, or not) I'm pro-life in almost all cases, with the only grey areas being rape or life of mother. I consider the baby a person, even before it is born, and so the arguments about the difficulty for a young parent, the cost of raising it, the affects of the body, etc. sound the same as if you were asking if you could kill your toddler so he doesn't cost you so much money, or affect your ability to go to college, or make you less attractive somehow- very Casey Anthony-esque. I don't think "I don't feel like taking care of it" is a good reason to kill a child.
The major issue that I have is that in cases that are not rape or molestation, pregnancy is 100% preventable. There are a lot of uneducated people out there, but I can't imagine many of them don't know that sex = baby. They may not know the likelihood per un-protected encounter, or how many different types of contraception there are, but they do know that they can't get pregnant if they don't have sex. In my mind, if you make the choice to have sex, you assume the responsibility for any results. It's unfortunate that a stupid or drunk mistake can make huge changes to your life, but I don't think that's an excuse to pass the consequences on to another person by killing them. If you make a mistake with your credit, and it costs you your house and/or job, it's not a reasonable excuse for murdering your neighbor and taking his house.
In the case of a medical situation, where either the parent or the child will die if carried to term, I would agree that it's a case of deciding which life to save more than sacrificing a life for some material goal. I would support abortion in this case, just as I would support a paramedic who came to a car accident, and had to choose which person to keep from bleeding out because they didn't have time to save both.
The only time, other than medical emergencies, that I have any sympathy for the pro-choice argument is in the case of rape. In this case, it isn't a choice that the parent made, and so there was no way they could have taken precautions against it. It's not people who are refusing to take responsibility for their actions- it's people who had no choice in the conception, and now, even if the child is given up for adoption, are facing 9 months of constant reminder of what happened, and the various physical changes and pain that goes along with that. In those cases, I really do feel bad for the mothers, and while I don't believe the right choice is to take it out on the baby who hasn't harmed anyone, I can see how they would want the nightmare to just be over.
Currently, I think the law allows people to make as many mistakes as they want, and pass the buck when there are consequences by killing their child. I think it's disgusting. If the laws were written in a way that it was only a possibility in cases of rape or life of mother, I don't think I'd fight to change them. I might not agree with a woman choosing that, even in a case of rape, but I can't say that I think it's at all the same thing as a woman who chooses that because she didn't want to drive to the store for condoms one night, or for emergency contraception the next day (which exists in forms that would not interfere with an existing pregnancy, btw, and is only preventative).
I don't think this is a debate that anyone can win, though, because the perspectives of each side are so radically different. Either you believe a fetus is a human being, or you don't. There's no middle ground. People who are pro-life get upset because to them the argument is whether you can murder a child or not, because of the inconveniences they'd cause, and they can't understand why anyone could advocate that. People who are pro-choice just do not think the baby is a person yet, and so all they see is the government trying to keep them from getting some personal operation to make their lives much easier, and can't understand that someone could advocate that. I'm sure if you asked a pro-life person if the government could prevent you from having reconstructive surgery after an accident, or asked a pro-choice person if they supported the euthanasia of children under the age of 5 by parents who couldn't afford them, both of those people would look at you like you're a nut. And that's why there will never be middle ground- because based on what you believe the fetus is, the other side looks like monsters.
Post by
pezz
Sorry for the massive article
, but I've been a philosophy major for five semesters now and this is still the only article I've ever read where I've pretty much just said 'yup, that's now become my view, written by someone else.'
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Pezz
It was an interesting read, but it seems like the vast majority of the argument is about the violinist having been attached to someone without their permission, through no actions of their own, by someone else. This is clearly the scenario in a rape situation, but those do not make up the vast majority of abortion scenarios. Estimates are that between .3 and 1% of abortions are the result of rape.
A more appropriate analogy would be this: You hear about this new designer drug that everyone is into. Supposedly the high is really, really great. However, there is a small chance that if you take the drug, and someone touches you, that this person will become physically joined to you. This person will also need to remain physically joined to you for the next 8-9 months, or else die from being prematurely removed. In this instance, you are aware of that you are risking a situation where an innocent bystander will become dependent on you for their life because of a circumstance you cause in the pursuit of personal pleasure. You decide to take that risk, either by blatantly walking around after taking it and not caring, or by taking reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of people touching you. If, in this instance, your precautions fail and some random person ends up brushing against you and getting stuck, don't you have a responsibility to not end their life when you're the one who created the situation that left them dependent on you in the first place? Don't they have the right to expect that when someone knowingly puts them in danger in the pursuit of personal enjoyment, and then that same person has the power to keep them alive, that they should be responsible to do so?
Post by
Asylu
Although I do not personally agree with abortion, I feel it should be allowed as a option, at least til the 8 week mark, after that point the embryo is now a fetus and could through intervention survive outside the womb.
But abortion would less of an issue if proper sex education occurred in the US, less teen and early 20's pregnancies. But that is for another thread.
Yes, abortion should be allowed, after all other options have been explored. It is the right of
both
genetic donors to end the pregnancy
before
the embryo becomes viable. After that point adoption should be the only option.
Would I ever have a non-medically necessary abortion?
No.
Do I think that women who choose that option should be allowed to ever have kids?
No, they made their reproductive choice. If you want to act like an adult, take the responsibly and see to your offspring. Adoption is far kinder than young and stupid parents. I should know.
Post by
pezz
@Elhonna
Nope, she addresses your point about voluntary intercourse:
And we should also notice that it is not at all plain that this argument really does go even as far as it purports to. For there are cases and cases, and the details make a difference. If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
The burglary idea I won't use, because it's equating someone making the decision to victimize someone else to someone who is innocent and just happens to have been conceived inconveniently. It's apples and oranges.
The seed thing is a closer metaphor, though seems to hinge on the idea that sex is only loosely related to procreation, like a breeze that happens to blow a seed into your...well...self. Sex isn't an accident that occasionally cause an unrelated circumstance. Sex is the act of procreation. We enjoy it, though, so we often have it even when we're not going to procreate. But there is a difference between the loose connection of "I opened a window, and a baby flew in, so why should it have any hold over me." and "I specifically engaged in an act which is biologically designed to create a baby, and it was effective, and now I want to kill said baby because I was hoping to keep having sex."
The first is a coincidental action, that is not really directly related to the situation, but made it possible- a.k.a.- I took a sleeping pill, and I fell asleep rather than go out. As a result, all of the cars that would have been behind me were one car length further ahead than they would have been, and someone ran a red light and killed a little girl. It's sad, and if the original person had not taken that pill, and had gone out, they might have stopped in front of the person who ran the light, and kept them from doing it. But the original person didn't do anything that could have been supposed to have put a child directly in danger. A different action might have changed that chain of events, but not forseeably.
The second is a direct action- if the person took the sleeping pill, and then went out and drove anyway, and as a result they personally ran the light and killed the little girl. They engaged in an activity that they knew would directly put people at risk, and they killed someone as a result.
Consensual sex doesn't happen to you because you left a door open. It happens, because you make the choice to engage in the activity that specifically results in pregnancy. There are ways to mitigate the risks, but you're never 100% safe. Also, the statistics are that 46% of women were using no birth control during the month when they got pregnant. Only about 13-14% of the people who were using birth control reported using it correctly. So, doing the math, only about 7-8% of people who are wanting to cut down your seed babies even bothered to put screens up correctly. The rest said- "Yeah, I'll just kill them if they grow."
If you add up the people who have no choice in having intercourse, with the people who are taking the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy, you still end up with more than 90% of the people who are seeking the abortion having not effectively minimized the risk of pregnancy ahead of time. Even if you want to say that people who tried to protect against pregnancy responsibly have done their due diligence and shouldn't be responsible for accidents that slipped past, the vast majority of people who have abortions haven't done what they need to in order to prevent it.
A good portion of her argument, if I was reading it, was that people had the responsibility to be "Minimally Decent Samaritans." She said that they may not have the responsibility to spend 9 months nurturing a baby, but they should call the police if it's left out in the cold to die. If people have that responsibility, then isn't the Minimally Decent Samaritan supposed to at least take 30 seconds and take a pill every day, or put on a condom, to prevent the death of a person? If they refuse, isn't it their fault that the situation escalated to the point where this other person now needs 9 months of their time to survive?
Source:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Post by
Adamsm
Define "human".
Define "life".
Does an entity that will grow into a human, but is less than 23 weeks old, meet the qualifications of the first two definitions?Humans are us, life is all around us. And apparently not, according to the medicos.
Finally, what qualifies the medical community or legal community to decide it is ok to kill something they do not fully understand?Same thing that qualifies them to put people to death, decide to pull the plug on a brain dead patient, preform a mercy kill for someone who had half of their body blown apart.
But meh; I'm done here, my position on the fact that strangers should not be interfering with the personal lives of other people still hasn't changed, and I still hate the fake abortion doctors who prey on young women and make the choice for them.
Post by
MyTie
Define "human".
Define "life".
Does an entity that will grow into a human, but is less than 23 weeks old, meet the qualifications of the first two definitions?Humans are us, life is all around us. And apparently not, according to the medicos.Your logic begs to be Godwin'd. "We are human, and others are not, and the doctors agree with that, so I need no further argument to go ahead and euthanize". You're argument, or lack thereof, is astounding.
Finally, what qualifies the medical community or legal community to decide it is ok to kill something they do not fully understand?Same thing that qualifies them to put people to death, decide to pull the plug on a brain dead patient, preform a mercy kill for someone who had half of their body blown apart.I don't believe the government has the right to choose to put people to death. I don't believe people have the right to 'pull the plug', unless with prior consent by the person. I don't believe in mercy killings either. Our differences run deeper than just abortion. You are much more flippant with life than I am.But meh; I'm done here, my position on the fact that strangers should not be interfering with the personal lives of other people still hasn't changed, and I still hate the fake abortion doctors who prey on young women and make the choice for them.Yeah, those fake abortion doctors are rampant, no? Can you give me a source that shows how often this happens?
You're points, that I can see are:
1) It's not a human because it isn't and there are doctors that agree (unsourced).
2) It's the woman's body.
3) People kill abortion doctors (unsourced)
4) Fake abortion doctors (unsourced)
5) Underprivileged kids are better off dead.
If you are done here, good riddance to a poor debate platform. I know I'm probably not going to change your mind. I just hope, that somewhere in that head of yours, you rattle around a few more questions and tough thought. The fact that tougher thought doesn't come naturally to you, before you approve of... friggin abortion... is pretty heinous. Your "care not" attitude is also dumbfounding. Abortion is not something to be given to lightly.
Post by
MyTie
I don't want to get into philosophical questions (define life? Really?) or questions of right and wrong here, but I just thought I'd jump in and mention
What changes at 23 weeks that makes the lump of flesh into a living human being with rights?
I've read of cases (the sources are swedish, but I can link them if you so desire - translation tools could probably help if you find it necessary) where babies have been brought out of their mother's womb (for one reason or another) and lived by week 22 or week 23. Before that, I believe the baby/fetus does not possess the capabilities to survive without the nourishment that it is provided inside the mother's womb. It simply is not ready, physically, to live yet. I don't think that any drastic changes occur once week 23 is reached, but it is a set number because the line has to be drawn somewhere - it happens to be at the point where the baby
might
(really want to stress the "might" here) survive.
So, viability? Why is a baby that is too young to be viable outside the womb, not entitled to its life? What about children under the age of, around 10, that are not able to figure out how to grow/find food on their own? Since they cannot become functionally independent to any degree, are they more acceptable to kill than children who know how to grow and find food? I find the more helpless and dependent the child is, the more heinous the killing is.
Post by
Adamsm
I don't believe the government has the right to choose to put people to death. I don't believe people have the right to 'pull the plug', unless with prior consent by the person. I don't believe in mercy killings either. Our differences run deeper than just abortion. You are much more flippant with life than I am.Or I'm more of realist.
1) It's not a human because it isn't and there are doctors that agree (unsourced).
2) It's the woman's body.
3) People kill abortion doctors (unsourced)
4) Fake abortion doctors (unsourced)
5) Underprivileged kids are better off dead.1. As it's part of what they do, I'd say that's common knowledge.
2. It is.
3. Yeah...unsourced, except when it shows up on the news that someone bombed an abortion clinic;
the Anti-Abortion page.
4.
Fake Abortion clinics and doctors
and more on
CPC
.
5. I never said that, don't put words in my mouth.
If you are done here, good riddance to a poor debate platform. I know I'm probably not going to change your mind. I just hope, that somewhere in that head of yours, you rattle around a few more questions and tough thought. The fact that tougher thought doesn't come naturally to you, before you approve of... friggin abortion... is pretty heinous. Your "care not" attitude is also dumbfounding. Abortion is not something to be given to lightly.No !@#$ sherlock; but as I've never been in that position of getting a girl pregnant and having to make that choice, what I think or feel has
no $%^&ing place
in the lives of strangers because I can't make that type of choice for them, and no one has that right. And dial back on the insults MyTie, seriously; so what if I don't agree with you and have different thoughts on things based on what I've read over the years, stop acting like I'm leading a line of women into the clinics to get rid of their fetuses.
This particular topic is just something I don't care that much about, and while it's cool you do, at the same time, passing any laws against abortion would be the same as chaining some poor victim to a bed and forcing them to go through with this unwanted pregnancy and taking away any and all choice.
Post by
MyTie
Yuck. I had the whole reply to Adamsm typed and then I pressed the wrong button and it's gone. I guess I'll just reply to the two obvious parts:
5) Underprivileged kids are better off dead.
5. I never said that, don't put words in my mouth.then what did you mean by this:/shrug So, you'd rather have the child carried to full term, then dumped into an orphanage, where it may or may not be adopted over the course of it's life, depending on who the mother had been?And this part is great:No !@#$ sherlock; but as I've never been in that position of getting a girl pregnant and having to make that choice, what I think or feel has
no $%^&ing place
in the lives of strangers because I can't make that type of choice for them, and no one has that right. You've also never murdered women (I'm assuming), so you have (I quote)
no ^&*!ing place
to make that choice for serial killers. You know, if you say something regarding morals, that sounds really cool and sensitive, but doesn't make sense when applied to the world we live in, then I'm gonna call you on it.passing any laws against abortion would be the same as chaining some poor victim to a bed and forcing them to go through with this unwanted pregnancy and taking away any and all choice.And charging mom's with murder who decapitate their toddlers is the same as chaining parents down everywhere and forcing them to raise their kids. How could you? You cannot make an argument for abortion, well, anything that holds water (lol common knowledge). You also cannot make an argument against anti abortion, because it appears that your logic is flippant and not thought out. Next time you type something here, take 20 seconds and try to apply your logic to other parts of life and see if it makes sense. I'm being serious. Get a watch, and time yourself. 20 seconds. It will save me a lot of typing, and you feel like you are being insulted.
Post by
Gone
I think abortion is wrong, but support pro choice. I believe abortion to be a moral issue, ending potential life. But because I believe it's a moral issue I think that individuals should decide for themselves and have to accept the consequences. I think morally the decision is clear but people can disagree with me, but legally it seems gray to me, the rights of an unborn child vs the rights of an adult (physically anyway) woman.
I know this is an old comment, but i feel the need to respond.
I can be ok with somebody being pro choice and supporting abortion because its what they believe, I can also be ok with somebody being pro life and being against abortion, and I can of course be ok with somone who is neutral and has no opinion of it at all.
What I can never be ok with is somebody who says "I think abortion is wrong, but people should still have the choice". If you believe that somebody is doing something morally wrong
that effects another person
(as you see it) and still you support this person, then that i think is whats the most morally repugnant.
As a society we aknowledge that there are some choices people are not allowed to make. Its why drugs are illegal, its why we require people to have a license when they drive, its why incest and beastiality are illegal, and even trivial things like J walking.
Like I said, if you believe that abortion is ok and you support it then thats fine, but believing something is morealy wrong, and supporting it anyway to be, idk politically correct or something, is wrong.
Anyway Ill get into my own feelings on abortion later, I just wanted to adress this.
Post by
MyTie
I think abortion is wrong, but support pro choice. I believe abortion to be a moral issue, ending potential life. But because I believe it's a moral issue I think that individuals should decide for themselves and have to accept the consequences. I think morally the decision is clear but people can disagree with me, but legally it seems gray to me, the rights of an unborn child vs the rights of an adult (physically anyway) woman.
I know this is an old comment, but i feel the need to respond.
I can be ok with somebody being pro choice and supporting abortion because its what they believe, I can also be ok with somebody being pro life and being against abortion, and I can of course be ok with somone who is neutral and has no opinion of it at all.
What I can never be ok with is somebody who says "I think abortion is wrong, but people should still have the choice". If you believe that somebody is doing something morally wrong
that effects another person
(as you see it) and still you support this person, then that i think is whats the most morally repugnant.
As a society we aknowledge that there are some choices people are not allowed to make. Its why drugs are illegal, its why we require people to have a license when they drive, its why incest and beastiality are illegal, and even trivial things like J walking.
Like I said, if you believe that abortion is ok and you support it then thats fine, but believing something is morealy wrong, and supporting it anyway to be, idk politically correct or something, is wrong.
Anyway Ill get into my own feelings on abortion later, I just wanted to adress this.
QFT.
One of the most obvious WTF moments is when people are like "I believe abortion is wrong because it is the killing of an unborn child, but I believe a woman should be able to make that choice." My head literally hurts trying to purge itself of the crazy logic it was just bombarded with.
Post by
Adamsm
For the first part, that still didn't say I wanted them dead.
You've also never murdered women (I'm assuming), so you have (I quote) no ^&*!ing place to make that choice for serial killers. You know, if you say something regarding morals, that sounds really cool and sensitive, but doesn't make sense when applied to the world we live in, then I'm gonna call you on it.Nice dodge; why do you get to make a choice for someone else: I mean really, why do you and those who think as you do get to make that choice for a women to force them to carry to term a child they don't want, and may not even be able to afford medical care while they are pregnant, which could increase the loss of the life of the mother, why does the fetus rate higher then her?
And charging mom's with murder who decapitate their toddlers is the same as chaining parents down everywhere and forcing them to raise their kids. How could you? You cannot make an argument for abortion, well, anything that holds water (lol common knowledge). You also cannot make an argument against anti abortion, because it appears that your logic is flippant and not thought out. Next time you type something here, take 20 seconds and try to apply your logic to other parts of life and see if it makes sense. I'm being serious. Get a watch, and time yourself. 20 seconds. It will save me a lot of typing, and you feel like you are being insulted.Alright, simple logic: We don't have the right to make a choice for a women in regards to what she's going to do. As for the rest of your post, whatever, I'm tired of this MyTie, so we'll sum it up one last time:
MyTie: It's a human being, don't kill me.
Me: Not a human yet, still up to the woman(and her significant other if he's in the picture) to make that choice and no one else.
Post by
OverZealous
Sorry I'm late.
@OZ- but, based on your argument, wouldn't it also be allowed then for a parent to kill a disabled 2 year old, or 5 year old, or 10 year old, if they were on some kind of special machinery to keep them alive? I mean, lets say a child is born with deformities in the digestive tract that make it impossible for them to survive without continuing artificial support to compensate for what they were receiving in the womb? If the parent doesn't pay to provide these medical services, the child will die. Or, on a broader level, newborn babies, if left in the wild to defend themselves, would die. They are clearly not physically able to live without this outside source of constant care. If the right to life is based on whether or not someone could survive without being sustained by the parent, aren't there a lot of kids who would be able to be "aborted" pretty much up until grade school?
I believe you misunderstand my post. I am not saying that abortion is okay because the baby is not ready to live yet, nor am I saying that abortion is right at all. I am not arguing for or against anything, simply bringing my opinion on why week 23 is the decided week most respectable doctors go by. Indeed, I did not intend for what I wrote to be an argument at all. I could probably find sources in english that explain why week 23 is when a fetus is considered a human, and abortion becomes amoral and illegal, if you so desire.
But, since you took time to write me a post, I feel I should at least answer you.
I believe that there are cases of (very serious) disability among very young children where one
might
prefer to end the life of the child instead of seeing it suffer, perhaps on some form of life support, for the rest of its life - which most probably will be difficult, painful, expensive and (possibly) long. Now, I am not saying that all disabled children should be killed because we believe it is the right thing to do and that we are saving them from a life of suffering, but merely that there are cases where i might advocate it. I do feel, very strongly, that if a life
can
be preserved without extreme pain on the other end, we should do what we can do save that life, but there are cases where I think it would be more merciful not to.
I base this on my own experiences, of course, I know that if I was to live the rest of my life in never ending pain that makes me unable to do anything, I would not want to live. I was very ill a couple of years ago, unable to speak coherently or stay conscious for longer periods of time, since the pain was incredibly intense. This lasted approx. two weeks. I do not know if I would have had the strength of will to hang in there for three
months
, let alone years.
In the case of deformities in the digestive tract - I do not know very much about devices that provide artificial nourishment; but if it requires the baby to be stuck in the hospital for the rest of its life, or until portable devices are invented, without being able to do anything but lie in a hospital bed, well... I don't think it is much of a life. Of course, if the child merely requires artificial nourishment every X hours and is able to function normally and engage in (most) activities relatively unhindered, then I think we should, naturally, do everything in our power to save that child. It has a life, though difficult, ahead of itself.
Most newborn animals (humans are included here) are unable to survive alone without support from their parents. This is basicly a law of nature. If all newborns were left in the wild to survive on their own, most higher life forms on Earth would die out relatively quickly. Again, I think you misunderstood my entire post. I do not believe that physical capability to survive entitles life, or the inability to survive alone makes it right to kill you. That doesn't match my set of beliefs whatsoever.
I don't want to get into philosophical questions (define life? Really?) or questions of right and wrong here, but I just thought I'd jump in and mention
What changes at 23 weeks that makes the lump of flesh into a living human being with rights?
I've read of cases (the sources are swedish, but I can link them if you so desire - translation tools could probably help if you find it necessary) where babies have been brought out of their mother's womb (for one reason or another) and lived by week 22 or week 23. Before that, I believe the baby/fetus does not possess the capabilities to survive without the nourishment that it is provided inside the mother's womb. It simply is not ready, physically, to live yet. I don't think that any drastic changes occur once week 23 is reached, but it is a set number because the line has to be drawn somewhere - it happens to be at the point where the baby
might
(really want to stress the "might" here) survive.
So, viability? Why is a baby that is too young to be viable outside the womb, not entitled to its life? What about children under the age of, around 10, that are not able to figure out how to grow/find food on their own? Since they cannot become functionally independent to any degree, are they more acceptable to kill than children who know how to grow and find food? I find the more helpless and dependent the child is, the more heinous the killing is.
Not my place to decide whether or not it is "more okay" to murder anyone based on anything. I do not feel that it is, in any way, more acceptable to murder any one person based on any one physical condition, but that is not what I tried to do with my post. I may have worded it badly, seeing as (I think) Elhonna seemed to misintepret it, as well. I attempted to explain, based upon what I've read, why week 23 is set as the legal limit for abortion.
I might misunderstand you, and you haven't misunderstood me at all. If that is the case, sorry, just got home from a pretty tough training session.
Post by
MyTie
For the first part, that still didn't say I wanted them dead.That's what happens with abortion. They don't go on holiday. They die. That's what we are talking about.Nice dodge; why do you get to make a choice for someone else: I mean really, why do you and those who think as you do get to make that choice for a women to force them to carry to term a child they don't want, and may not even be able to afford medical care while they are pregnant, which could increase the loss of the life of the mother, why does the fetus rate higher then her?For the same reason I feel compelled to make the choice for mothers everywhere. Heck, even my own wife. I have made the decision for her that killing our children, born or not, is not acceptable.
I'm tired of this MyTie, so we'll sum it up one last time:
MyTie: It's a human being, don't kill me.
Me: Not a human yet, still up to the woman(and her significant other if he's in the picture) to make that choice and no one else.
The differences between our arguments is supporting logic. I offer DNA proof that is a unique human being from the moment of conception. The only logic you have offered yet, that the unborn is NOT HUMAN (my mind is still spinning) is that it is "common knowledge" and "medicos agree", and both of those, have failed historically, to offer justification for ending life.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.