Abortion

[Danneskjold]

The way I see it either an unborn baby is alive, in which case abortion should be illegal, or not alive, in which case the woman should have the right to do what they want with their body. I personally say that it should have to be aborted before week five which is when its heart starts beating, or week nine which is when brain activity starts. Past either point I consider the unborn baby alive.

What are the thoughts here?

[Chris Grieb]

Danneskojld; Your thinking is somewhat on my lines. I think you have set some good standards and some specific times that arbortion becomes wrong. I suspect you have kicked over a hornet's nest. Good luck!

[Brant Gaede]

The way I see it either an unborn baby is alive, in which case abortion should be illegal, or not alive, in which case the woman should have the right to do what they want with their body. I personally say that it should have to be aborted before week five which is when its heart starts beating, or week nine which is when brain activity starts. Past either point I consider the unborn baby alive.

What are the thoughts here?

Either a woman has a right to an abortion or she doesn't. That's the starting point for discussion, not whether the baby or fetus is "alive."

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; What makes a person a person? For many of us we see a slipery slope.

[Danneskjold]

If the unborn baby isn't alive then it is a part of the woman's body. If the unborn baby is alive then it's connected but not a part of what would be considered the woman's body. Therefore the woman would have no right to end the life of the unborn baby.

[Kat]

Abortion is a bit of a sticky issue. I don't know the answer, but my own views on the topic have changed since having two children of my own. If you had asked me my views on abortion before having kids, I would have said it is fine anytime and people who are not able to give a child a good stable home shouldn't have kids and in some cases abortion should be mandatory. Bearing and raising these kids pretty much has changed my perspective. Nurturing a child both inside and outside of your body puts a human face on a fetus. As the pregnancy progresses the fertilized egg goes from being a potential person to a person. The unborn baby is always alive, but is completely dependent on the mother for its life. In other words, in a state of development connected to the mother where the mother has the power to stop the child from being born.

Although I still think that abortion should still be legal under all circumstances, that doesn't make it right morally. A woman should be able to decide within the first three months whether she wishes to terminate the pregnancy. No one should interfere with that. No peer pressure from family, friends, etc. She should discuss it with her partner, but ultimately it is her decision. She is the one who is ultimately responsible for the child. It is not just an issue of carrying a baby to term, it is a matter of having to raise that child (with or without the father) and have full legal responsibility, until he or she is eighteen years old. Until birth control is made to be 100% effective and a woman has full control over her reproductive function, abortion should be 100% legal.

I think the decision needs to be made early in the pregnancy, so for the first 3 to 4 months it should be a completely normal and discreet medical procedure available at a reasonable cost available to all women and they should be allowed to buy optional insurance coverage for it. After 4 months the cost should increase dramatically and it should be discouraged. After 7 months (or whenever viable), the baby should be considered a live birth and given up for adoption (or possibly medical research?) rather than disposed of. The thought of late term abortion is horrible, but the thought of making it criminal is even more horrible.

Kat

[Chris Grieb]

Kat; I have been thinking about abortion since NBI days. I have gone from being a strong pro choicer to being a soft pro-lifer. The fetus is a human being at its stage of development. I would like someone to explain why infanticide is wrong if the argruments for abortion are right. Why it is wrong to kill someone who is incapacited.

[Danneskjold]

Saying that people should be allowed to have abortions until contraception is a 100% guarantee that you won't get pregnant is like saying people should be allowed to sue if they play with fire and get burnt. (The metaphor is fire=sex and getting burnt=pregnant, not burn wound=baby. Since the person hurt by an abortion is a third party then I'm going with suing a third party.) There are quite a few good reasons for being pro-choice, that contraception isn't a 100% guarantee isn't one of them. Getting pregnant is a known risk (or benefit) of having sex. If someone chooses to ignore these risks, along with the knowledge that contraception is not a 100% guarantee, then whatever happens is their fault. Adoption is always an option after the baby is born anyway. No woman who has a baby is forced to keep it, I just wish they wouldn't be allowed to kill it before it's born.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant; What makes a person a person? For many of us we see a slipery slope.

Chris, we have to start with the fact that a woman is a person. It is the status of the unborn child or fetus at various stages of a pregnancy that is debatable.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If the unborn baby isn't alive then it is a part of the woman's body. If the unborn baby is alive then it's connected but not a part of what would be considered the woman's body. Therefore the woman would have no right to end the life of the unborn baby.

Is the unborn baby alive or not? If, by your reasoning, the unborn baby isn't alive at any time during the pregnancy, then a woman has a right to an abortion. Does she? Ever? Yes or no.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Kat; I have been thinking about abortion since NBI days. I have gone from being a strong pro choicer to being a soft pro-lifer. The fetus is a human being at its stage of development. I would like someone to explain why infanticide is wrong if the argruments for abortion are right. Why it is wrong to kill someone who is incapacited.

Why doesn't the term "pro-lifer" also apply to a woman's rights? No one argues that a woman (or a man) has rights because rights is "pro-life". This special reasoning is only for the unborn. It is true that a right to life is the basic human right, but that is not the popular (cultural) argument.

Infanticide is wrong because murder is wrong. A woman can't abort an already born child so the right to an abortion doesn't apply. The longer the pregnancy the more debatable everything becomes. There is nothing wrong with late stage abortion to save a woman's life, but if the fetus can be removed from the womb without killing it that should be done out of a moral if not legal imperative.

Again, the bottom line is either a woman has a right to an abortion or she doesn't. If she does, then just what that right consists of should be defined by statute. If this question is not first dealt with everything else will just be an exchange of verbiage in this discussion.

--Brant

Edited November 27, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Judith]

Adoption is always an option after the baby is born anyway. No woman who has a baby is forced to keep it, I just wish they wouldn't be allowed to kill it before it's born.

You're forgetting about the danger, discomfort, and disfiguration of the pregnancy itself. Carrying a baby to term is far more dangerous than abortion, not to mention the months out of one's life that are gone forever.

So many people see having a baby as a "punishment" for sexual activity. Sigh.

Judith

[Danneskjold]

You're forgetting about the danger, discomfort, and disfiguration of the pregnancy itself. Carrying a baby to term is far more dangerous than abortion, not to mention the months out of one's life that are gone forever.

So many people see having a baby as a "punishment" for sexual activity. Sigh.

Judith

I wouldn't say so much that I am forgetting the danger, discomfort, and disfiguration, so much as I would say the life of, what I am convinced is, a living being outweighs the danger etc. As for the it being more dangerous than abortions...well this is just rhetoric I admit, but last time I checked 100% of successful abortions have at least one fatality.

And I did mention that it was a benefit, right here:

Getting pregnant is a known risk (or benefit) of having sex.

[Judith]

Getting pregnant is a known risk (or benefit) of having sex.

I'm the first one to admit that many people are too careless when it comes to birth control. Nevertheless, no method is foolproof. Even tubal ligation has a one in two thousand chance of failure. The only truly foolproof method for preventing pregnancy is total abstinence.

Tell me, would you be willing to go for your entire life without having sex to ensure that you would never have a baby?

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Judith; You could limit yourself to the same sex. There are risks there too.

[BAMF]

Getting pregnant is a known risk (or benefit) of having sex.

I'm the first one to admit that many people are too careless when it comes to birth control. Nevertheless, no method is foolproof. Even tubal ligation has a one in two thousand chance of failure. The only truly foolproof method for preventing pregnancy is total abstinence.

Tell me, would you be willing to go for your entire life without having sex to ensure that you would never have a baby?

Judith

A woman could have her uterus removed. Oh, how I wish...

[blackhorse]

Abortion should be illegal except when a)the mother's life is in jeopardy, and B} before the 8th week of fetal development.

(After the 8th week of fetal development there are sensory nerves to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.)

Edited November 29, 2006 by blackhorse

[Danneskjold]

I'm with Blackhorse. There has to be a defined point when something is alive and when something isn't. There are simply more landmarks (heart starts, brain activity, sensory nerves) within the first two months or so than there are in the late months. After the beginning of brain activity, heart starting, and sensory nerves, things are mainly physical, such as growth of limbs. I don't know about you, but I see a slight problem with defining what is and is not alive by the amount of limbs they have.

As to the 100% birth control effectiveness that was once again brought up, if you play with fire, you might get burnt, it's as plane as that. If your burn happens to turn into a human being then it is the owner of its own life and you have no right to kill it.

As to Judith's question about if I would go my whole life without sex:

No, I wouldn't. But I want a kid. I will, however, go until I think that in the unlikely event that I do impregnate a girl I will be able to find a means to provide for it. That means both monetarily and with a stable household.

I'm a virgin and proud. Why? Because I'm responsible enough to know I'm not responsible enough to have a kid at age 16. Also because I continue to have sole ownership of my own body. But that's another topic.

[BAMF]

I'm a virgin and proud. Why? Because I'm responsible enough to know I'm not responsible enough to have a kid at age 16. Also because I continue to have sole ownership of my own body. But that's another topic.

*STANDING OVATION*

[CNA]

Getting pregnant is a known risk (or benefit) of having sex.

I'm the first one to admit that many people are too careless when it comes to birth control. Nevertheless, no method is foolproof. Even tubal ligation has a one in two thousand chance of failure. The only truly foolproof method for preventing pregnancy is total abstinence.

Tell me, would you be willing to go for your entire life without having sex to ensure that you would never have a baby?

Judith

A woman could have her uterus removed. Oh, how I wish...

Good job, Kori. You took the words right out of my mouth, having a Hysterectomy or Oophorectomy. The latter being removal of one or both ovaries.

Blackhorse wrote:

Abortion should be illegal except when a)the mother's life is in jeopardy, and B} before the 8th week of fetal development.

How about in the case of 1) sexual assault 2) Massive congenital defects such as in Proteus syndrome aka Elephant Man's Disease or severe mental retardation 3) Mother *has rare congenital disease* that is hereditary and likelihood of passing it on to the unborn child is extremely high? 4) Mother *is a carrier* of a rare genetic disorder and the unborn child being afflicted is extremely high? Would you give any of these women the option of having an abortion and possibly sparing that child a lifetime of misery or in the case of the mother's resentment of her child that was due to a brutal sexual assault?

The 3rd and 4th example, a girlfriend of mine has a friend that has a very rare congenital disease, became pregnant. The child was born with many many health problems as well as being born with no legs. So I've been told, she is not expected to live to see her 10th birthday.

QUOTE(Danneskjold @ Nov 29 2006, 01:39 PM)

I'm a virgin and proud. Why? Because I'm responsible enough to know I'm not responsible enough to have a kid at age 16. Also because I continue to have sole ownership of my own body. But that's another topic.

*STANDING OVATION*

:cheer: I second that !!! :cheer:

Angie

Edited November 30, 2006 by CNA

[blackhorse]

CNA, I should have been more thorough with my answer. I too believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

[Charles R. Anderson]

I am strongly inclined to argue that a fetus is a living part of a woman's body. The fact that a fetus is alive is not the same as saying it is an independent and separate human being. When the fetus becomes a baby by birth or when it is separated from the mother by an operation which the mother consents to, then one has an independent being with the independent right to life. Prior to that, its right to life is as a part of its mother, which gives her a very wide latitude to chose whether she will sustain the development of the fetus as a part of her body.

She has the same rights to the fetal part of her body as she has to the other living parts of her body. The fact that her hair lives is not sufficient reason to deny her a hair cut. The fact that her ear lives is not sufficient reason to say she cannot pierce her ear. She might even choose to remove her ovaries, her fallopian tubes, her tonsules, her gall bladder, a kidney, or other living body parts and this we recognize as her right.

But an independent human being who loses the operation of their heart or their brain ceases to live. We turn this around and we say the fetus lives because at a certain time the heart starts beating or there is an intiitation of brain activity, so the fetus both lives and is an independent human being. Well, no, the fetus is not independent. It taps into its mother's nutrient supply and oxygen supply. It lives inside a protected cocoon provided by the mother. It is supplied with heat by the mother. The fetus lives not independently, but as a part of its mother.

Having an abortion is not to be taken lightly. It is a very serious decision. It has been shown to haunt many women and many have regretted it. Being the oldest of six children, I helped raise several of my younger sisters and my brother. I greatly enjoyed that. The highest few events of my life certainly include each of the births of my three daughters. It was a marvel to observe and participate in their development as independent, thinking human beings. Those of you who have not yet had a child, I beg you to study their early development and understand the miracles of learning they do from day to day. All this proceeds from the potential of the fetus. But, we should grant that that potential is realized and initially developed as a part of the body of the fetus' mother. This is another reason why we should respect the mother and hold that she makes the decision about whether she will nourish her fetus to full development and bring it into this world.

Honor thy mother and every mother.

This criterion for an independent right to life does not remove all sticky issues with respect to abortion, but it does leave us with many fewer than if we decree that the right to life begins with brain activity. In addition, I recognize that my argument need not fly if one believes in God and believes that God grants the right to life. That problem remains out there in our society, but is not a great one among Objectivists.

In addition, those of you who want to tie the responsibility of giving birth around the necks of those who would enjoy sex, either do not have a proper appreciation for the heaven on earth that sex can be or you have soaked up too much of the Christian culture's wish to limit earthly pleasures in order to enhance the call to serve God as the means to leave earth's veil of tears behind for the promise of heaven.

[Judith]

As to Judith's question about if I would go my whole life without sex:

No, I wouldn't. But I want a kid. I will, however, go until I think that in the unlikely event that I do impregnate a girl I will be able to find a means to provide for it. That means both monetarily and with a stable household.

Well, the fact that you do eventually want one or more children certainly makes it easier to answer that question.

Try, for the sake of argument, to imagine that you never wanted children in your life. Or try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't want children.

Would you really suggest that you (or that person) lead a completely, 100 percent celibate life so that there would be no chance whatsoever of an unintended pregnancy?

Forego forever and completely the consummation of romantic love, one of the two greatest joys known to human beings?

I ask this question to bring into stark awareness the full, human cost of what your position entails. It's very easy to say, in a calm, detached way that "abortion should be illegal (except for certain possible exceptions)". It's quite another to put a human face on it, perhaps your own face.

In fact, many staunchly pro-life parents, such as Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Christians, have reversed their positions when it was their own teenaged daughter who turned up pregnant. Or, they may not have reversed their theoretical positions, but they still got their daughters the needed abortions.

Let me remind you that at eight weeks, many women with irregular periods don't even know that they ARE pregnant. It's a huge thing to ask that all abortions be performed by eight weeks.

I'm fully convinced that the abortion issue will never be resolved by science. I think it is, and will remain, a purely subjective issue, to be determined by an individual's personal values. What is that fertilized egg/embryo/fetus worth to you? What will you do for it?

My bitch is now spayed, but before she was, if my dog had accidentally covered her, there is NO WAY I would have had her spayed to prevent the birth of those puppies had I not discovered the pregnancy untiil it was far along. I would have done whatever was necessary to move into whatever size house was needed to keep every single one of those babies, regardless of the cost and inconvenience to me. On the other hand, I would have had no objection whatsoever to giving her the morning-after pill to prevent the fertilized eggs from implanting and aborting "before they grew and developed enough to be something I might care about".

I can fully see, by analogy, how the pro-life people feel, and how different people feel about embryos and fetuses in different levels of development. But I cannot ever see people reaching a common level of consensus on it.

I think most people would agree, however, that a newly fertilized egg is "too early to care about". Those who argue that it is a human because it has 46 unique chromosomes are making a purely legalistic argument. As I've said elsewhere, I think our gut instincts are something to be respected; even though they aren't the final determinants of truth, they are often ahead of our conscious minds. In this instance, they certainly tell us something important.

So asking what one is willing to give up for a fetus -- including a normal sex life -- is not an irrelevant question.

One thing I DON'T understand is the argument that abortion, while otherwise illegal, should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. ???? That position is akin to saying, Okay, abortion is murder, but it's okay to murder if the woman "wasn't in the wrong". That, in turn, is saying that being forced to bear a baby is a punishment for sexual activity, and if the woman "wasn't in the wrong", she is "off the hook". ???? If abortion is murder, it's murder, and should either be legal or illegal except to save the mother's life. Period. Anything else is completely illogical.

Judith

Edited November 30, 2006 by Judith

[Danneskjold]

She has the same rights to the fetal part of her body as she has to the other living parts of her body. The fact that her hair lives is not sufficient reason to deny her a hair cut. The fact that her ear lives is not sufficient reason to say she cannot pierce her ear. She might even choose to remove her ovaries, her fallopian tubes, her tonsules, her gall bladder, a kidney, or other living body parts and this we recognize as her right.

If that hair that you compare to a fetus is allowed to stay on the woman's head will it grow a mind of its own with cognitive abilities and remove itself on its own? The fact is that they cannot do this. This is a variable which defines the difference between a human-being-to-be and a hair on the human's head.

Well, no, the fetus is not independent. It taps into its mother's nutrient supply and oxygen supply. It lives inside a protected cocoon provided by the mother. It is supplied with heat by the mother. The fetus lives not independently, but as a part of its mother.

Sounds like half the kids in my suburb.

In addition, those of you who want to tie the responsibility of giving birth around the necks of those who would enjoy sex, either do not have a proper appreciation for the heaven on earth that sex can be or you have soaked up too much of the Christian culture's wish to limit earthly pleasures in order to enhance the call to serve God as the means to leave earth's veil of tears behind for the promise of heaven.

Yes, and for that reason we should all do heroine, LSD, crack, and meth. It's not like we have a future to worry about. Live in the moment, anyone who's decides of their own free will that they are not going to do these things and hold those who do responsible for their own actions is contaminated by the evil Judeo-Christian morals that say we'll be repayed in heaven. Those who want to tie the responsibility of the well-being and condition of the drug user's own mind around the necks of the drug users is either a Christian, follows Christian morals, or has never done drugs.

Let's face it, your attempt at discrediting my opinions failed miserably.

Who's responsibility would you suggest we tie the burden of the baby around? Sure, we can abort it, but for you to say that we can't hold people responsible for the result of an action they take? Come on.

You have admitted it's alive, once you've done that you have to decide whether or not it is human. If the baby is human then you can't kill it.

Edit: This post was edited to make it more polite.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Danneskjold

[Chris Grieb]

Sounds like half the kids in my surburb. Right on! A child must rely on his parents for a long time before he becomes independent. Some never do. The pro arbortion people in my opinion never can get around this fact. How the law should be used needs to worked out but it is still the killing of a human being.