Abortion video

[Halifirien]

So from your point of view, an infant's life doesn't begin and become legally protected until . . . when exactly?

From my point of view, when it's out and breathing on its own independent of its mother. While it's still a part of the woman's body, her rights/needs take precedence.

There comes a point where sentience and potential sentience come to the same thing.

When it's actual sentience?

From a legal standpoint, the period upon which time a child becomes viable outside the womb seems like a logical place to draw the line.

And I disagree because, as I said, the woman's rights/needs take precedence over any imagined rights the fetus may have. Legally (and ethically), I see no justification in forcing a woman to remain pregnant a minute longer than she wishes to be.

 

[Uzor]

To anyone following the thread of mine and Hali's specific discussion - the quote above is in response to the question I posed a few posts earlier.

To Hali:

So from your point of view, an infant's life doesn't begin and become legally protected until . . . when exactly? When it can sustain life on its own? That point doesn't come until 16 or 17 years of age by the laws of our society, arguably somewhat younger if you view humanity as simply the world's weakest, slowest-maturing primate. At the veritable instant of birth? Rather an "out of sight, out of mind" stance to take, is it not, considering that, when left to the dictates of nature, that event adheres to no set timetable?

That is kind of false. No, humans aren't the strongest primate. The average man is much weaker than, say, your average gorilla. However, our strength doesn't lie with pure physical strength. It lies with our intelligence. We outsmart the other primates.

As just a "The more you know..." tidbit. One of the reasons we survived and not the other human species such as Neanderthals, is just because we matured slower. Maturing slower means you're dependent on your mother longer, which means the group as a whole becomes friendlier with each other and helps each other out more. It makes for larger ties within the group. It also means the duration under which the animal can learn easy is longer, as the way nature work, its harder for an adult, fully matured animal to learn new things. While not impossible, it makes it harder.

One of the very reason we're as successful as we are, is because of our slow mature rate. Chimps are, arguably, the most intelligent primate (after us). They, ironically, mature at the age of 12-13. Gorillas, on the other hand, which are not as intelligent, mature at around the age of 7-8. You can see this clearly in every type of animal. Dolphins, which are well known to be smart, mature at the age of 10-15. There are, off course, like everything, exceptions to the rule. But as a general rule of thumb, the longer it takes for an animal to mature, the more intelligent it will be. Ironically, almost all of the slow-maturing animals are animals that live in a group.

 

[Reauland]

I think both yourself and Uzor are missing part of my point.

When does sentience begin, you ask? When does independence begin, I ask.

I'm well aware that intelligence is behind humanity's success as a species. I'm simply pointing out that if you consider a fetus(and by this, I mean still in utero, but at a point of development that would allow it a fighting chance at surviving birth and developing normally) as only having any right to its own existence after its birth, capable of sustaining life "on its own", then we need to define what we mean by survive. Obviously a newborn can't survive unassisted. It can't feed itself; it can't provide itself with shelter. So by your definition, the simple act of birth defines when it has rights?

If that's what you're saying, try this on for size:

Let's say Mother A and Mother B conceive at precisely the same moment, their pregnancies proceed along similar paths, only diverging in that Mother A's child is born three weeks early, Mother B's is born right on time, like clockwork. By your definition, Hali, Mother B has a three week grace period in which she can still terminate her pregnancy. If Mother A decides to have someone kill her now born child during that three week period(or at any point thereafter) we all know where she's gonna end up, don't we?

I'm sorry, but that strikes me as an altogether arbitrary distinction. Furthermore, by emphasizing the child's self-sufficiency, wouldn't it by your philosophy be acceptable to "opt out" of parenthood by killing a two-year old child? They're not exactly self-sufficient either, and could easily be placing a parent under every bit as much economic and emotional strain as it ever did during the pregnancy.

As for sentience, I'm not going to say that a fully developed infant is sentient, not for one second. I am, however, going to say that a fetus that has already survived the period where none too infrequently early miscarriages occur and has developed to a point where it would be perfectly capable of surviving ex utero, then it stands a damn sight better chance of becoming sentient than a microscopic bundle of cells, hence my use of the word potential.

 

[Halifirien]

Furthermore, by emphasizing the child's self-sufficiency, wouldn't it by your philosophy be acceptable to "opt out" of parenthood by killing a two-year old child? They're not exactly self-sufficient either, and could easily be placing a parent under every bit as much economic and emotional strain as it ever did during the pregnancy.

Except that I never said self-sufficiency. At any rate, self-sufficiency the way you're describing it is not the same as the concept of a creature that is alive and independent (as in, not biologically connected) of another creature. My "philosophy" in no way indicates that it would be okay to kill a two-year-old child, which is a living, breathing human being with rights. That would be... wait for it... murder.

Sure, it strikes you as arbitrary. That's because it is arbitrary on my part. So what? Plenty of things in life are. I'm not particularly concerned with the exact moment when life begins -- conception, by trimester or the minute it pops out of the womb and starts breathing on its own. My point is that whatever rights a fetus may or may not be entitled to, I believe the mother's right to self-determination trumps it. Always will. As far as I'm concerned, she's alive in a way that the fetus is not.

But that's why I'm pro-choice. Just because I don't assign personhood to a fetus doesn't mean I'm trying to force my definition on anyone else. If a woman doesn't want to have an abortion, that's as okay to me as the woman who says she does. What I don't like is the anti-choice crowd who would run roughshod over that distinction by imposing their definition on everyone.

Beyond that, I'm just amused by the people who loudly proclaim that it's murder but don't follow that to its logical conclusion by insisting women be charged with murder and given life sentences in prison.

 

[Trippyhippy]

I think both yourself and Uzor are missing part of my point.

When does sentience begin, you ask? When does independence begin, I ask.

Both questions are without definitive answers. It is not a black and white subject and to treat it as such is irrational. It will continue to be that way until we are all carbon copies of each other.

I'm well aware that intelligence is behind humanity's success as a species. I'm simply pointing out that if you consider a fetus(and by this, I mean still in utero, but at a point of development that would allow it a fighting chance at surviving birth and developing normally) as only having any right to its own existence after its birth, capable of sustaining life "on its own", then we need to define what we mean by survive. Obviously a newborn can't survive unassisted.

Survive unassisted as in not have machines breath for them. Heart, lung, liver, kidneys all functioning normally.

Let's say Mother A and Mother B conceive at precisely the same moment, their pregnancies proceed along similar paths, only diverging in that Mother A's child is born three weeks early, Mother B's is born right on time, like clockwork. By your definition, Hali, Mother B has a three week grace period in which she can still terminate her pregnancy. If Mother A decides to have someone kill her now born child during that three week period(or at any point thereafter) we all know where she's gonna end up, don't we?

I'm sorry, but that strikes me as an altogether arbitrary distinction. Furthermore, by emphasizing the child's self-sufficiency, wouldn't it by your philosophy be acceptable to "opt out" of parenthood by killing a two-year old child? They're not exactly self-sufficient either, and could easily be placing a parent under every bit as much economic and emotional strain as it ever did during the pregnancy.

Here, you are trying to make a distinction between being able to physically live, and being a productive member of society. This isn't what anyone is saying. If that was the case, retarded people would be able to be aborted at any point in time, and no one is trying to say that.

 

[Master Honcho]

heres my take on abortion..

1. if ur pregnancy is threating your own life.. then unfortunately i personally agree with having an abortion to save your own life even though it would be a terrible thing for you.

2. if you had sex with a random guy or a boyfriend or w/e without a condom and get pregnant and simply want an abortion. i believe that is wrong. having sex is a special thing and if you must have it, and cant wear a condom, then you should own up to YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. I would even go on to say that you should keep your child, but if you cant support your child then you should put your child up for adoption... ther'es plenty of people out there that could care for your kid and would love to have him/her. and if you want an abortion simply because you didn't take the precautionary matters and have no problem with ending a potential life because of your mistakes. then to me.. that's pathetic and sad.

3. thats it. if you dont want a baby. put a lid on it. if you do. take it off. if you mess up. thats your issue to deal with and ending a life for no good reason but ur own selfish ways is wrong.

 

[Halifirien]

ending a life for no good reason but ur own selfish ways is wrong.

So what's your idea of an appropriate punishment for a woman who would do that?

 

[Reauland]

Survive unassisted as in not have machines breath for them. Heart, lung, liver, kidneys all functioning normally.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but either Child A or B from my scenario would have been capable of living at the point of Child A's birth. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think that 3-week premies require any form of breathing machines, etc. Hali's saying that even at that late date, the mother's rights supercede the rights of her unborn child, and I'm sorry - that's just not something I can get behind. In fact, that is precisely the point I'm trying to express. I believe that pregnancies that have reached the point where the fetus has developed sufficiently to survive unaided should be ineligible for abortion.

Here, you are trying to make a distinction between being able to physically live, and being a productive member of society. This isn't what anyone is saying. If that was the case, retarded people would be able to be aborted at any point in time, and no one is trying to say that.

See above.

EDIT: To Hali,

It's quite obvious to me at this point that this is one of those areas where we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I hope I've given you something to think about, and rest assured, you've certainly given me food for thought as well. In closing, I'd just like to add that a substantial portion of your conception of what constitutes a living being with rights seems to be tied up in the act of breathing and, I'd assume, receiving nourishment via some other route than an umbilical cord. Where exactly would that leave someone such as Christopher Reeves, paralyzed above the diaghram, receiving nourishment intravenously or by a feeding tube, but nonetheless undeniably aware?

 

[Marajade]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but either Child A or B from my scenario would have been capable of living at the point of Child A's birth. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think that 3-week premies require any form of breathing machines, etc. Hali's saying that even at that late date, the mother's rights supercede the rights of her unborn child, and I'm sorry - that's just not something I can get behind. In fact, that is precisely the point I'm trying to express. I believe that pregnancies that have reached the point where the fetus has developed sufficiently to survive unaided should be ineligible for abortion.

Question: Is a 3-week premie part of the mothers body anymore? Because if it is (somehow) then it is subordinate to the mothers right to self determination. If it isn't, than it isn't. It isn't exactly a complicated idea to figure out.
Now you need to ask yourself, if its at that stage, would you force the woman to give birth prematurely if she wished to abort?

 

[Halifirien]

It's quite obvious to me at this point that this is one of those areas where we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I hope I've given you something to think about...

You haven't really given me anything new to think about -- no offense, but I've heard these arguments before, even the question about Christopher Reeve -- but I'm content to agree to disagree.

 

[Master Honcho]

So what's your idea of an appropriate punishment for a woman who would do that?

to me personally. there shouldnt be a punishment because if it was up to me. it wouldnt come to having an abortion for this reason in the first place.

but let me say soemthing i didnt say earlier. in this world, women are gonna have abortions. as much as people protest it, a women can make her choice as long as its legal and no punishment should be handed down unless an actual law passes then obviously i would say jail time if you break the law.

but to me. its gonna happen and im not gonna say all women who do this are evil and should be burned at the stake, but i will say that to me if a man and woman do this for an unjust reason, i think these people are cowards, selfish, and to be frank.. sad.

this is just what i personally believe

 

[Trippyhippy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but either Child A or B from my scenario would have been capable of living at the point of Child A's birth. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think that 3-week premies require any form of breathing machines, etc. Hali's saying that even at that late date, the mother's rights supercede the rights of her unborn child, and I'm sorry - that's just not something I can get behind. In fact, that is precisely the point I'm trying to express. I believe that pregnancies that have reached the point where the fetus has developed sufficiently to survive unaided should be ineligible for abortion.

Well, if you want to draw a line, take note that the Supreme Court has ruled that the word "person" in the 14th amendment does not apply to the unborn, therefore they do not get to enjoy the protection of the constitution, and they have no rights. So Hali is, once again, correct.

 

[Uzor]

If that's what you're saying, try this on for size:

Let's say Mother A and Mother B conceive at precisely the same moment, their pregnancies proceed along similar paths, only diverging in that Mother A's child is born three weeks early, Mother B's is born right on time, like clockwork. By your definition, Hali, Mother B has a three week grace period in which she can still terminate her pregnancy. If Mother A decides to have someone kill her now born child during that three week period(or at any point thereafter) we all know where she's gonna end up, don't we?

Once again, instead of performing an abortion if the baby is due in 1 week, you could perform a caesarean cut. While the baby could survive if its born 3 weeks early, it would have problems later in life. No, it is not right to kill it.

What you seem to ignore, is that NO ONE EVER, or at least EXTREMELY rarely performs an abortion in 9th, 8th or even 7th month. If a person goes beyond the 5 month limit, its because they want to keep the baby. At month 1 when you don't get your period, you most likely expect something. So you might, maybe, wait a few days, and then do a pregnancy test. You find out you're pregnant. You now have 4 MONTH to decide whether you want to keep it or not. Most, if not all, are perfecly capable of making that decision in 4-5 months. You can't honestly think someone finds out 3 weeks before the baby is due, that, "holy crap, I'm pregnant! I have to perform an abortion". So no, you're still overreacting. Hence why your "3-weeks-prior" argument holds no real value. Besides, you could, once again, if you HAVE to perform an abortion at this point, either wait another week or two per doctor's recommendation, and then perform an caesarian section and then put the baby up for adoption. And who knows, you might want to keep the baby at that point anyway.

I can guarantee you, though, that if you're due in 3 weeks, the doctor will NOT recommend an abortion at that point.

 

[Pastry]

Planning a robbery is not illegal.

Boy is that wrong. If police discover your planning to rob something, it is illegal.
I'm not talking about stealing a pack of gum from the grocery though.

 

[Ryuhei]

I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. In the confines of the abortion issue, I think it should be legal, but only after the third trimester.

 

[Muttzen]

I think that the difference between killing a fetus/baby/blastomere is pretty small. Its in the mind of the persons carrying out the abortions that they aren't. I mean which would you rather kill, a clump of cells or a baby. Yeah.

Really, what is the difference between the clump of cells and a baby. The baby can move and cry, but does it really even know anything? If you gave it a painless lethal injection, nothing bad would come of it. They baby wouldn't care, and if the operation was carried out, the other involved parties probably didn't care to begin with? I don't see how it is much different than killing an unintelligent clump of cells.

Anyhow. That sorta doesn't matter.

What do I think should be done.

I think that abortions should be legalized in threatening circumstances. What these would include, I have no idea. Then, at least aborting the fetus has a very good cause.

Also rape in some cases. However, the mother should undergo psychological therapy to try and recover from the rape, so that the fetus can be spared.

In some cases, if the mother is unable to provide for the child, this would be a good candidate for abortion. However, as life would have it, these are the people that abortion is least available too, as in third world areas.

However, if a mother or a couple wants to get an abortion because they screwed around. Well, I think its tough shit. They knew what they were doing. Its not fair to the baby to be that its potential life is going to be wasted. Its disrespectful to life, which is one of the only things that we have in this world.

I imagine it like opening a gate to a newborn human, to enter the world. Then you close it in their face. "No thanks, you see, we don't really want you. Yeah I know, we copulated. Yeah I know, we made what would have been your body. Thanks but no thanks, I have more important things to do, my life."

 

[Raesylil]

A woman probably won't be able to recover from a rape knowing that she's carrying the rapist's baby. Therapy after the abortion would be a more sounder idea since the unwanted result is out of her system.

She's going to have to live on knowing that she was raped everyday after the incident. I think it'd push any woman off the bridge if you give her therapy just so the baby can be saved.
If the baby is spared, who's going to raise it?

 

[Reauland]

Well, if you want to draw a line, take note that the Supreme Court has ruled that the word "person" in the 14th amendment does not apply to the unborn, therefore they do not get to enjoy the protection of the constitution, and they have no rights. So Hali is, once again, correct.

Because, of course, every decision that the Supreme Court hands down is the absolute, utter last word, immutable and sacrosanct?

With all due respect, we're not arguing what the law currently says. We're arguing what we believe it should say. As a matter of fact, there could already be legislation on the books that either discourages or prevents late-term abortions in the first place, for all I know. I simply find the belief of "life" beginning at the moment of birth and not one moment sooner every bit as arbitrary and emotionally driven as the other camp's belief that it begins at conception.

And Uzor? That's where your point of view parts ways with the other side of the argument I've been having. That argument had nothing to do with whether or not a doctor was recommending an abortion to someone so late in a pregnancy. It was about that mother's right to demand one.

 

[Reauland]

Question: Is a 3-week premie part of the mothers body anymore? Because if it is (somehow) then it is subordinate to the mothers right to self determination. If it isn't, than it isn't. It isn't exactly a complicated idea to figure out.
Now you need to ask yourself, if its at that stage, would you force the woman to give birth prematurely if she wished to abort?

So it's all about biological connection, is it? In the very strictest of terms, a fetus isn't and never was part of its mother's body. It's an organism all its own developing within another organism, obtaining its nutrients via a biological connection to its "host."

The argument could be made that regardless of how the nutrients are delivered, that fetus/child continues to obtain all its nutrients through its parents/caretakers for an amount of time vastly longer than the nine month incubation period. Once said fetus/child reaches a developmental stage where it would be capable of taking nourishment via "baby" methods, it really seems that unreasonable to consider it at that point, in fact, a baby, whether in utero or not?

Finally, in answer to your question - I'd let the mother do whatever the mother wanted to do, regardless of how immoral or irresponsible I might find it to be. If society were to deem it a crime, more's the better.

 

[Panda]

Also rape in some cases. However, the mother should undergo psychological therapy to try and recover from the rape, so that the fetus can be spared.

Dude, havent you ever seen any of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies? Don't you see what happens to babies that are products of rape? Jeez.