Late Term Abortion..where Should We Draw the Line? Posted: 03-08-07 02:31am
The worlds most premature baby was born at
21 weeks. She came out weighing 101/2
ounces and was roughly 11inches long.. If
a child can be born and survive with what
doctors are calling a very good prognosis
(no brain damage or any signs of mental
delay) when do we cross the line from
abortion to killing?
|
diamond splinter
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 611 Location: ,
Posted: 03-08-07 04:09am
There is no difference in abortion and
killing both stop a beating heart
|
vanessalouanne
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 2268 Location: ,
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-08-07 04:23am
diamond splinter
wrote:
There is no difference in
abortion and killing both stop a beating
heart
I agree..Im just curious where people
stand.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Posted: 03-08-07 04:24am
For foetal handicap and maternal health
problems I fully support abortion up until
birth.
For "social" abortions I think they should
be done as quickly as possible and before
there is a better than average chance of
survival outside of the uterus. That
being said, it's only my opinion from an
objective standpoint - unless in the
position (thankfully I found out early in
my pregnancy) I couldn't possibly give a
full opinion.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 03-08-07 08:04am
I think it is already rather difficult to
get an abortion at 21 weeks?
I do think there is a line where abortion
should be severely curtailed. I also
think it's important to have exceptions,
like moo already outlined.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 748
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-08-07 09:35am
Firstly, just because the 21-week
micro-preemie seems to have no problems
now doesn't mean symptoms won't manifest
later. An underdeveloped body combined
with a brain hemorrhage is no recipe for a
healthy baby. I'd safely bet, in about
five years' time, that kid will have a
plethora of problems (if it lives that
long anyway).
Honestly, I would support abortion for
social reasons up until birth if it was
made legal. Some women change their minds
about having kids, some women may not know
they're pregnant until late in the
pregnancy due to their body weight or
carrying low, and there's the rare
instances where early abortions get
botched and the woman remains pregnant. As
long as it's still in the woman's body,
she should be able to do with it what she
pleases. It shouldn't matter that the part
in question is alive or not - cancer cells
and disease-causing bacteria are also
alive once inside the body, but does that
mean the afflicted individual should not
be allowed to seek treatment because
antibiotics, chemotherapy, or other
medications would make that life cease to
exist?
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3743 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 72
Thanked:65
Posted: 03-08-07 11:11am
I support abortion up to birth in cases
where the baby has severe
disabilities that will mean it will have
no quality of life. I don't think
abortion should be used in cases where the
baby has a cleft lip/palate and other
minor 'imperfections' as a normal life can
be pursued.
Re: Late Term Abortion..where Should We Draw the Line? Posted: 03-08-07 12:13pm
vanessalouanne
wrote:
The worlds most premature
baby was born at 21 weeks. She came out
weighing 101/2 ounces and was roughly
11inches long.. If a child can be born and
survive with what doctors are calling a
very good prognosis (no brain damage or
any signs of mental delay) when do we
cross the line from abortion to
killing?
There shouldn't be a limit. A foetus is
parasitic in nature and denied legal
rights as a person from the first day of a
pregnancy right up until the last. I
believe that a woman has the right to do as she
pleases with her own body, which is
one of the reasons I am pro-choice,
therefore it is contradictive for people
who agree with that to say it is OK for
somebody to abort at eight weeks but not
at eight months. And finally, legally
(ethics aside) abortion should be
completely unrestricted because, although
you
may disagree with late-term terminations,
some people don't, and you certainly don't
have the right to enforce your humble
opinion as law, which is why law should be
so women have the right left open to make
their decision.
The argument of when a foetus is viable
outside of the womb is totally pointless,
in my view, since the foetus, whatever the
gestation stage, occupies the body of a
breathing, thinking, cognitive,
functioning person protected by human
rights.
Kypros.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-08-07 12:39pm
I agree with most current laws in america,
in which social abortions are hard/illegal
to obtain after about 20-22 weeks. I feel
this because during the 20's weeks, a
fetus begins to be able to feel pain, and
it is also first viable during this time
period. I feel that once the fetus is
viable, it can no longer be considered a
parasite. A parasite cannot survive
without a host; but a viable fetus can
survive. That's why I draw my line there.
For medically needed abortions or those
done because of fetal deformation, I
approve up to birth.
I agree with most current
laws in america, in which social abortions
are hard/illegal to obtain after about
20-22 weeks. I feel this because during
the 20's weeks, a fetus begins to be able
to feel pain, and it is also first viable
during this time period. I feel that once
the fetus is viable, it can no longer be
considered a parasite. A parasite cannot
survive without a host; but a viable fetus
can survive. That's why I draw my line
there.
For medically needed abortions or those
done because of fetal deformation, I
approve up to
birth.
But, eiri, it is still parasitic in nature
until birth because it is living, feeding,
and surviving only from its host's body,
just as a non-viable foetus. And, as
you've pointed out before several times,
the unborn are not individual people, and
nor are they protected so legally,
therefore, they do not have the right to
inhabit another person's womb. So to
restrict this (from a pro-choice point of
view) is self-contradictive. I see nothing
wrong with personally feeling that late
abortions are unethical or 'wrong', but as
long as you advocate an unlimited period
to obtain a termination legally, so you
are not forcing your own view on all
women, I don't have a problem.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 03-08-07 17:20pm
If your pro-choice you support the choice
that was made even if you feel that it is
morally wrong.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Re: Late Term Abortion..where Should We Draw the Line? Posted: 03-08-07 18:17pm
Kypros
wrote:
There shouldn't be a limit.
A foetus is parasitic in nature and denied
legal rights as a person from the first
day of a pregnancy right up until the
last. I believe that a woman has the
right to do as she pleases with her own
body, which is one of the reasons I
am pro-choice, therefore it is
contradictive for people who agree with
that to say it is OK for somebody to abort
at eight weeks but not at eight months.
And finally, legally (ethics aside)
abortion should be completely unrestricted
because, although you may
disagree with late-term terminations, some
people don't, and you certainly don't have
the right to enforce your humble opinion
as law, which is why law should be so
women have the right left open to make
their decision.
The argument of when a foetus is viable
outside of the womb is totally pointless,
in my view, since the foetus, whatever the
gestation stage, occupies the body of a
breathing, thinking, cognitive,
functioning person protected by human
rights.
Kypros.
I can't personally think of any reason
that a 32 (just throwing a number out
there) week old fetus that is perfectly
healthy and isn't endangering anyone life
could be aborted and I wouldn't feel
uncomfortable with it.
However, it's not my thing to lay a
blanket statement over everyone about
something so personal like this. I
wouldn't dream of making anyone follow my
morals; you have to live with your own
choices, not me.
I would strongly discourage anyone in this
situation to avoid abortion. On the other
hand, I sure as hell am not adopting your
kid.
It's a hard dilemna.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-08-07 22:15pm
diamondsz
wrote:
If your pro-choice you
support the choice that was made even if
you feel that it is morally
wrong.
Well yes, that is the final point
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-08-07 22:16pm
Kypros
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
I agree with most current
laws in america, in which social abortions
are hard/illegal to obtain after about
20-22 weeks. I feel this because during
the 20's weeks, a fetus begins to be able
to feel pain, and it is also first viable
during this time period. I feel that once
the fetus is viable, it can no longer be
considered a parasite. A parasite cannot
survive without a host; but a viable fetus
can survive. That's why I draw my line
there.
For medically needed abortions or those
done because of fetal deformation, I
approve up to
birth.
But, eiri, it is still parasitic in nature
until birth because it is living, feeding,
and surviving only from its host's body,
just as a non-viable foetus. And, as
you've pointed out before several times,
the unborn are not individual people, and
nor are they protected so legally,
therefore, they do not have the right to
inhabit another person's womb. So to
restrict this (from a pro-choice point of
view) is self-contradictive. I see nothing
wrong with personally feeling that late
abortions are unethical or 'wrong', but as
long as you advocate an unlimited period
to obtain a termination legally, so you
are not forcing your own view on all
women, I don't have a
problem.
But my point is that you could
remove that fetus via c-section and it
would survive with a little medical help
and be a perfectly healthy child. I'm
talking 30+ here. I am seriously against
social abortions over 30+ weeks.
If your pro-choice you
support the choice that was made even if
you feel that it is morally
wrong.
Yes, very true.
Eiri
wrote:
But my point is that you
could remove that fetus via c-section and
it would survive with a little medical
help and be a perfectly healthy child. I'm
talking 30+ here. I am seriously against
social abortions over 30+
weeks.
Yes, but the argument is practically
pointless: the foetus is parasitic in
nature until birth and whether or not it
is viable after a Caesarian section is
totally unrelated - the woman has a right
to do as she pleases with her own body. I,
therefore, can't see why you
are against social abortions after 30+
weeks gestation, if not ethically, then at
least legally. As diamondsz said, we, as
pro-choicers, must support any
decision made by a female regarding her
own womb. We, as pro-choicers, must be advocates
of legally unlimited abortions (in number
and in gestational period) so we can allow
women to make their decisions, without
forcing our morals down their throats (not
that I see late abortions as morally wrong
anyway). A foetus is a foetus is a foetus.
A parasite containing human DNA which is
not protected by law as an established
person. End of. I really don't see the big
hoo-ha about late-term terminations: an
abortion is still the same whatever the
reason, the logic, the morals, and, of
course, the gestational period.
It's not as though women will purposely
leave an abortion right up until the last
minute; certainly they should be
encouraged to make a decision as early as
possible, perhaps due to the medical
complications of a late abortion (and only
that). If a woman only discovers a
pregnancy at seven months gestational
period, why should she have to carry the
baby to term? If a woman changes her mind
(obviously for a serious reason), why
should she carry the baby to term.
This whole "abortions should be illegal
after six months of pregnancy" is
definitely anti-reproductive rights and
anti-choice. If you personally find late
abortions morally wrong, fair enough, I
will debateit because I believe my stance
is correct, but don't enforce it as a law.
That is wear pro-choice very easily
crosses the line to pro-life.
Kypros.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-09-07 16:32pm
Kypros
wrote:
diamondsz
wrote:
If your pro-choice you
support the choice that was made even if
you feel that it is morally
wrong.
Yes, very true.
Eiri
wrote:
But my point is that you
could remove that fetus via c-section and
it would survive with a little medical
help and be a perfectly healthy child. I'm
talking 30+ here. I am seriously against
social abortions over 30+
weeks.
Yes, but the argument is practically
pointless: the foetus is parasitic in
nature until birth and whether or not it
is viable after a Caesarian section is
totally unrelated - the woman has a right
to do as she pleases with her own body. I,
therefore, can't see why you
are against social abortions after 30+
weeks gestation, if not ethically, then at
least legally.
I am, for some reason, unable to view a 38
week fetus as a pure parasite, because I
know it feels pain; I know it is capable
of being a healthy baby. Viability is what
matters to me as far as this goes.
I should amend something. Up to 20, I
don't care. 20-30, you need a good reason
like, you couldn't get the money until
now, or you didn't know until now, you
needed to wait to travel to another
country, etc. After 30 weeks, that fetus
had better be horribly disfigured, you
must have been raped, or the fetus is
about to kill you if you want to abort it.
Why the hell did you wait this long? There
is no excuse at that point.
You have a right to your own body, you
have the right to do what you want... but
only up until the point where it starts
overriding the rights of another viable
human being.
Quote:
As diamondsz
said, we, as pro-choicers, must support any
decision made by a female regarding her
own womb. We, as pro-choicers, must be advocates
of legally unlimited abortions (in number
and in gestational period) so we can allow
women to make their decisions, without
forcing our morals down their throats (not
that I see late abortions as morally wrong
anyway).
I support it, in the very base sense that
a woman has the right to her body. But I
cannot ignore the viability of the
fetus!!!!!
Quote:
A foetus is a
foetus is a foetus. A parasite containing
human DNA which is not protected by law as
an established person. End of. I really
don't see the big hoo-ha about late-term
terminations: an abortion is still the
same whatever the reason, the logic, the
morals, and, of course, the gestational
period.
The hoo-ha comes from the viability
factor. I know viability means absolutely
nothing to you, but it does mean a lot to
other pro-choicers, and I think you need
to remember that. Some of us do actually
care about the fetus, and we feel that at
some point, it becomes as worthy of life
as the mother has the right to her body,
and when this point is reached, then it
is, to me at least, wrong to kill the
fetus.
Quote:
It's not as
though women will purposely leave an
abortion right up until the last minute;
certainly they should be encouraged to
make a decision as early as possible,
perhaps due to the medical complications
of a late abortion (and only that). If a
woman only discovers a pregnancy at seven
months gestational period, why should she
have to carry the baby to term? If a woman
changes her mind (obviously for a serious
reason), why should she carry the baby to
term.
As you will see above, I'm "okay" with
later-term abortions for the reason of "I
didn't know". But by 30 weeks, unless
you're really fat already, you're gonna
freaking know. Yes, there have been
freak-cases where women didn't know until
suddenly a baby popped out, but most of us
will bloat up quite obviously during a
pregnancy.
And as I already said, if there is a very
serious reason for a woman to suddenly not
want the pregnancy, then I'm also fine
with it.
I think my point here is that I'm not
against all late-term abortions.
Just those done for purely social - and
might I add lazy - reason. The woman knew
she was pregnant, and she waited anyway,
even though she had money.
Now the point it, that situation almost
never ever happens. If a woman is aborting
late-term, there is normally already a
damned good reason for it; which is why
I'm perfectly fine with 90% of late-term
abortions. I am against "social" late term
abortions that have no backing as to why
they are so late.
Quote:
This whole
"abortions should be illegal after six
months of pregnancy" is definitely
anti-reproductive rights and anti-choice.
Why? Extreemism is wrong on both ends. No
abortion is bad, and aborting at 39 weeks
- for no reason aside from "I just didn't
feel like getting one until now - is also
bad. That is a waste of a life. Only a
horrible person would do that.
Quote:
If you personally
find late abortions morally wrong, fair
enough, I will debateit because I believe
my stance is correct, but don't enforce it
as a law. That is wear pro-choice very
easily crosses the line to pro-life.
Kypros.
So you believe that anyone at all who is
against abortion at any time and for any
reason, no matter how logical, is
automatically a pro-lifer? I'm a pro-lifer
because I don't approve of killing a fetus
the day before it is born? That is a very
very close-minded view of the pro-choice
movement.
Please read what I have written; I think
you'll see that I'm not against anything
that isn't already illegal. I'm more a fan
of maintaining the status-quo. I would
honestly define you as more pro-abortion
than pro-choice.
I do comprehend your stance on late-term
abortions, though certain things are still
unclear to me which I will explain at the
end of this post.
Eiri
wrote:
So you believe that anyone
at all who is against abortion at any time
and for any reason, no matter how logical,
is automatically a pro-lifer? I'm a
pro-lifer because I don't approve of
killing a fetus the day before it is born?
That is a very very close-minded view of
the pro-choice
movement.
Eiri, there are people who identify as
both pro-choice and pro-life (I don't
believe there is a single term for
somebody who advocates a mix of both
antithetical views), and I would describe
you as one of them, since there are cases
in which you disagree with abortion. It's
as simple as that.
Eiri
wrote:
Please read what I have
written; I think you'll see that I'm not
against anything that isn't already
illegal. I'm more a fan of maintaining the
status-quo. I would honestly define you as
more pro-abortion than
pro-choice.
Yeah, I have nothing against you at all,
eiri; I like you and I think you're a
great debater and you always maintain your
calm whatever the argument and you've
handled bad situations well, so don't
think I'm angry or anything because I do
think I portray myself that way sometimes
when I'm just stressing my opinions. Of
course I am pro-abortion: 'pro' means
'for', in the sense of 'supporting', and
since I support abortions, I am thus
pro-abortion, just like you and a good
many of people on these forums.
'Pro-choice' is a euphemism for
pro-abortion: it uses 'pro' to suggest
something positive (its negative
equivalent being 'anti-life', if you will)
and 'choice' to agree with 'pro'. I guess
it tries to emphasise a woman's 'choice'
factor. It's all a matter of semantics,
but 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' are
exactly the same. The reason I identify
myself as pro-choice (rather than
pro-abortion) is because, to be frank, it
sounds better and it is a very established
term vis-a-vis the abortion debate. If it
makes things any clearer, I would actually
struggle emotionally to have a
termination, and I can honestly say I
don't think I would ever obtain one. I
think, to a degree, you misunderstood me:
I take a very literal attitude to things
and describe myself as
realistically-thinking. I love debates on
hot topics such as abortion, euthanasia,
and other arguments of ethics so I can
weigh up the two differing rows and shape
my own view. Down to the nitty-gritty,
what I'm getting at is, I think the
answers to debates such as this are much
easier than what people tend to think them
to be since they are blow out of
proportion into sub-arguments which, in
reality, bear no significance to the
original debate. I think the abortion
debate revolves around the main question
"Does a woman have the right to control
what lives in her uterus?", which can be
interpreted using different words,
although retaining the same meaning, i.e.
"Does a woman's right to control her body
override that of a foetus to live?" etc.
Summing up the arguments, philosophy and
science has brought me to the conclusion,
after a long time of pro-life extremism,
that a woman, a breathing, thinking,
self-aware, cognitive, legally-protected
person, has more rights and worth than
that of a non-breathing, non-thinking,
non-self-aware, non-cognitive, non-legally
protected foetus containing human DNA.
Right, bear with me now, so you've got
that. Now, since a woman has the superior
right, who am I, or anybody, to place
limits, restrictions, and God forbid legal
intervention on that right? When it is
said that a person has more rights than a
foetus (which actually has none at all),
it isn't emphasised that the foetus has to
be eight weeks, eleven weeks, or up to
thirty weeks, as you say, old. A woman has
more rights that a foetus. Period. It is
illogical to look any further than that.
If you personally think it is immoral and
unethical to abort a foetus after thirty
weeks for social reasons, then I grant
your your right to a view, although you
still cannot enforce it as law. You need
to leave law open in a way that women can
make their choices. That is
where it becomes anti-reproductive rights.
Just as you can be both pro-choice and
pro-life, you can be pro- and
anti-reproductive rights. Restricting
rights to abortion is anti-choice. That's
just fact by placing words to meaning, not
an opinion. So, eiri, whereas I don't
doubt at all that you are pro-reproductive
rights and pro-female liberty, you should
recognise you are also anti- those things
if you
believe in legal boundaries on abortion.
That's reality by the meaning of these
words.
I remember you once saying before that you
didn't care whether the foetus was a
person or not - you still have the right
to abort since it's your body. So, if you
don't care about the foetus's status of
personhood, how can you care what stage in
the pregnancy someone chooses to abort?
Also, what my general argument about
late-term abortions is, is that a foetus
is
still a foetus anytime after the
first eight weeks of pregnancy and legally
is not a
person until it is born. So,
despite your personal feelings on
late-term abortions for social reasons,
you also must never forget that foetuses
are not legally protected - at all - and
are not identified as people
until birth.
To juxtapose your ideas of a parasite with
the dictionary's entry:
1.
an organism that lives on or in an
organism of another species, known as the
host, from the body of which it obtains
nutriment.
2. a person who receives support,
advantage, or the like, from another or
others without giving any useful or proper
return, as one who lives on the
hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who
received free meals in return for amusing
or impudent conversation, flattering
remarks, etc.
Thus, a parasite can also be something which
is viable. Parasitic status ends when the
foetus ceases to use its host's bodily
functions and nutrients - birth!
_________________
Sorry for that terribly long post, and
again, I'm not nagging at you, I'm just
putting forward my beliefs because I
believe they are 'correct'. To sum up what
I'm trying to get at: I accept your
opinions, although I disagree with them,
and I am simply stating my views to
compare them with your own and challenging
the areas where my opinions are contrary
to yours. The problem I have is the belief
that legally abortion
should restricted. That
belief, per se (regardless
of whether or not this person's other
beliefs are pro-rights), is anti-rights
(note I say the belief, not the person).
If the person also has pro-rights views,
then s/he is a mixture of both pro- and
anti-rights. My final question to you is:
do you believe that disallowing late-term
abortions for social reasons should be
law?
Kypros.
|
Guest
Guest
Cambion Are You Serious? Posted: 03-10-07 13:16pm
What kind of logic are you using? "If
it's inside my body---it's mine." How
simplistic and childlike is that? That's
something my 3 year old might say.
You're drawing connections between cancer
cells and a fetus because they are both
"living" and are using *that* to back up
your argument? So WHAT that cancer cells
are living? Worms are living creatures
too and we find it perfectly acceptable to
stick them through hooks as bait. There
are plenty of "living" things that are
"acceptable" to kill---- no
semi-intelligent person would argue that.
Your point is silly and trite and does
nothing to further your argument.
The question is: IS a fetus' life worth
something more than a cancer cell? They
both exist in someone's body---- so is one
worth saving more than the other? I would
argue that the fetus that is a HUMAN BEING
with a heartbeat, it's own unique
personality, DNA, etc. would be WORTH more
than a cancer cell. Duh. Good God--get
off the boards, you're making the
pro-choicers look stupid.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Re: Cambion Are You Serious? Posted: 03-10-07 19:54pm
josielovesdan
wrote:
What kind of logic are you
using? "If it's inside my body---it's
mine." How simplistic and childlike is
that? That's something my 3 year old
might say.
it might be simplistic but it is
intrinsically true.
Quote:
You're drawing
connections between cancer cells and a
fetus because they are both "living" and
are using *that* to back up your argument?
So WHAT that cancer cells are living?
Worms are living creatures too and we find
it perfectly acceptable to stick them
through hooks as bait. There are plenty
of "living" things that are "acceptable"
to kill---- no semi-intelligent person
would argue that. Your point is silly and
trite and does nothing to further your
argument.
The question is: IS a fetus' life worth
something more than a cancer cell? They
both exist in someone's body---- so is one
worth saving more than the other? I would
argue that the fetus that is a HUMAN BEING
with a heartbeat, it's own unique
personality, DNA, etc. would be WORTH more
than a cancer cell. Duh. Good God--get
off the boards, you're making the
pro-choicers look
stupid.
What about the fetus without a heartbeat?
I honestly think brain function is what
makes us human. Many species have hearts.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Re: Cambion Are You Serious? Posted: 03-11-07 17:09pm
josielovesdan
wrote:
What kind of logic are you
using? "If it's inside my body---it's
mine." How simplistic and childlike is
that? That's something my 3 year old
might say.
.
Like eiri said its the truth.....
Now to go on the other subject, we are all
animals remember that we evolved from apes
to homo sapiens, thing is everyone has
different morals on abortion and the thing
is I feel a woman has a right to her
body.
How would you feel if someone told you
what to wear, what to do and what to wear?
I think you would feel controlled..
If a fetus could be born in a tube great,
but its not going to happen and if the
could pull that egg out and donate to
someone else even better but until our
technology gets better abortion is a
choice that should be left open. Not
everyone is fit for parenting or adoption
remeber that.
