Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

professore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

Edit - diabetic (brought on by pregnancy )having a bit of a hypo moment so I may need to come back to this.

My life would be a lot less hassle if I could dump my kids and live a free and single life again. But this doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Bannasidhe

professore wrote: »

My life would be a lot less hassle if I could dump my kids and live a free and single life again. But this doesn't make it the right thing to do.

But you chose to have them. Was your wife getting pregnant 3 times a surprise?

I chose to have my child. We both made conscious decisions that we wanted children in our lives, made the necessary arrangements and we accepted there were terms and conditions attached to that decision (even if we really had no bloody idea of the fine print - I still have the imprint of a single piece of lego in my left foot, no one mentioned that as a possible term).

We made our choice. Do we have the right to say others do not have a choice?

professore

Jernal wrote: »

Removal of an unwanted invader from the woman's body that just happens to be dependent on her body to live survive. Unfortunate, but what right does the foetus have to invade her body in the first place?

Obviously MagicMarker or someone living on the pale blue dot with him.

iguana

Piper101 wrote: »

however, since becoming pregnant I cannot wrap my head around the upper limit for abortion in most Jurisdictions (incl that of our nearest neighbour) is 24 weeks.

I'm not sure of the data from other countries but in England and Wales 77% of abortions happen before 10 weeks, with 91% happening in the first trimester. Only 1.5% of abortions happen beyond week 20 and are almost always because of foetal abnormality or risk to the mother's life or health. It doesn't really happen that a woman gets as far into a pregnancy as you are and then decides to terminate because she doesn't want to be pregnant. It's very rare for a late term abortion to be anything other than a loved pregnancy being terminated for health reasons. A decision that is, imo, a whole world away from a woman choosing to end an unwanted pregnancy and which only happens so late in the pregnancy because it has taken that long for the diagnosis to be possible.

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

I wouldn't use it as the only factor in the decision but I'd consider it to be an important one.



You mean a disabled child who has already been born? Of course not. If you mean a disabled child conceived less than 20 weeks ago, then the disability is irrelevant as I'd still consider the mothers rights to come first.

How come, if that childs life has become a burden on you shouldnt you be able to fee yourself of that burden, like an abortion?

Penn wrote: »

And this would be where your PP comes in. Does the foetus have its own life at that stage? At some stage the foetus changes from a ball of cells and developing organs to a human being. At what stage does this happen, and if we could say "That happens at the 14th week", would you then consider abortions up to the 13th week to be acceptable?

Its a life in development , with not interference it will develop into a human child , it has a right to develop into that child. Some might even argue that the clump of cells ma be considered a basic form of human life

Penn wrote: »

And as for the fact that it's not just the woman's body, it is primarily the womans body. Again, the foetus cannot live without the mother, but the mother can live without the foetus. The mother and the foetus are not equal.

Fairly Random Hypothetical: You and I are sitting in a house. You want me to go to the cinema with you as you need me to drive. I want to stay in. Stalemate, right? Except doing nothing and neither of us winning (1 vote each and split vote) means that we would end up staying in, so technically, I win.

Same with the mothers rights and the childs rights. If the mother wants to abort the child, but the child has a right to life, then the mother can't have an abortion. But that means that the childs rights have won against the mothers rights. Whereas in actuality, just like you were dependent on me to drive to the cinema, the child is fully dependent on the mother, so the mothers rights should come first.

(Again, this is all dependent on the abortion being before the child can be considered to be a person, which personally I would consider being at approx 20 weeks)

I do see your point but again its a right to life so the scenario where both beings survive is the most preferable outcome

Turtwig

Penn wrote: »

(Again, this is all dependent on the abortion being before the child can be considered to be a person, which personally I would consider being at approx 20 weeks)

Apologies for truncating your post. You see this is the thing that is currently confusing me. Even if it was a 2 month old baby that had been born, I don't think it would make any difference. Let's say for the sake of argument the two month old child is surgically attached to the mother. The mother doesn't want the child attached to her body, it is her body, the fact that the child cannot be removed from her body without dying doesn't mean the child has 'right' to be there in the first place. In the case of the foetus, what right did it have to initially form itself in the womb without the mothers consent? Even if she did have sex consensually, was the bodily invasion by another entity somehow justified?

Hope that makes sense.

Zamboni

Jernal wrote: »

Apologies for truncating your post. You see this is the thing that is currently confusing me. Even if it was a 2 month old baby that had been born, I don't think it would make any difference. Let's say for the sake of argument the two month old child is surgically attached to the mother. The mother doesn't want the child attached to her body, it is her body, the fact that the child cannot be removed from her body without dying doesn't mean the child has 'right' to be there in the first place. In the case of the foetus, what right did it have to initially form itself in the womb without the mothers consent? Even if she did have sex consensually, was the bodily invasion by another entity somehow justified?

Hope that makes sense.

Did you see Prometheus recently?

UDP

Sin City wrote: »

How come, if that childs life has become a burden on you shouldnt you be able to fee yourself of that burden, like an abortion?

You can, its called putting the child up for adoption or putting the child in the state's care.

Sin City wrote: »

Its a life in development , with not interference it will develop into a human child , it has a right to develop into that child. Some might even argue that the clump of cells ma be considered a basic form of human life

Until the fetus does not rely on the body of the mother to physically function then it is part of the mothers body - not a life in itself. If we can replace the mothers body with a machine so that the child can function without the mother then no abortion should happen after the period that is possible from.

Penn

Sin City wrote: »

How come, if that childs life has become a burden on you shouldnt you be able to fee yourself of that burden, like an abortion?

Because in that case, the disabled child is most definitely a person. Disability or not, once you become an individual person, you have a full right to life. The question is when does that happen, when does the clump of cells become in any way, a person?

Sin City wrote: »

Its a life in development , with not interference it will develop into a human child , it has a right to develop into that child. Some might even argue that the clump of cells ma be considered a basic form of human life

I would agree that the clump of cells would be a basic form of human life. But is the clump of cells a person, and does it have rights? I don't think so, because it has not yet developed enough by that stage to be considered an individual person with a mind and body of it's own (even if that body is still dependent on the mothers body).

Sin City wrote: »

I do see your point but again its a right to life so the scenario where both beings survive is the most preferable outcome

Preferable for you and everyone from the outside looking in, but not preferable for the mother, and in that instance she is the one who this will effect the most. As such, it's a decision she must make, and it's never a decision which should be taken lightly. But it's her decision.

Jernal wrote: »

Apologies for truncating your post. You see this is the thing that is currently confusing me. Even if it was a 2 month old baby that had been born, I don't think it would make any difference. Let's say for the sake of argument the two month old child is surgically attached to the mother. The mother doesn't want the child attached to her body, it is her body, the fact that the child cannot be removed from her body without dying doesn't mean the child has 'right' to be there in the first place. In the case of the foetus, what right did it have to initially form itself in the womb without the mothers consent? Even if she did have sex consensually, was the bodily invasion by another entity somehow justified?

Hope that makes sense.

It makes sense, and I'd agree for the most part. I had a post written out earlier asking the "pro-lifers" if they would agree (provided it somehow became medically possible) for me to live in their appendix (as it's not being used anyway) for 9 months, living off the food they eat and causing nothing but bodily pain, but that because they agreed, there was no way they could change their minds... if they would like that scenario. But at the same time, I do think that when speaking about original conception, the cell clump in no way chose to form itself in the womb as it's purely biological and chemical, and while doing so doesn't give it any right to be there, the decision to abort or not should be taken before the cell clump reaches a stage where it could be considered to be an individual person.

professore

Piper101 wrote: »

This is a difficult debate for me, I've always been a very liberal person who believed that a person has a right to do whatever they want with their own lives and bodies as long as they don't hurt anyone else...however, since becoming pregnant I cannot wrap my head around the upper limit for abortion in most Jurisdictions (incl that of our nearest neighbour) is 24 weeks.

The part in bold is the crux of the matter for me.

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

Because in that case, the disabled child is most definitely a person. Disability or not, once you become an individual person, you have a full right to life. The question is when does that happen, when does the clump of cells become in any way, a person?



I would agree that the clump of cells would be a basic form of human life. But is the clump of cells a person, and does it have rights? I don't think so, because it has not yet developed enough by that stage to be considered an individual person with a mind and body of it's own (even if that body is still dependent on the mothers body).



Preferable for you and everyone from the outside looking in, but not preferable for the mother, and in that instance she is the one who this will effect the most. As such, it's a decision she must make, and it's never a decision which should be taken lightly. But it's her decision.



It makes sense, and I'd agree for the most part. I had a post written out earlier asking the "pro-lifers" if they would agree (provided it somehow became medically possible) for me to live in their appendix (as it's not being used anyway) for 9 months, living off the food they eat and causing nothing but bodily pain, but that because they agreed, there was no way they could change their minds... if they would like that scenario. But at the same time, I do think that when speaking about original conception, the cell clump in no way chose to form itself in the womb as it's purely biological and chemical, and while doing so doesn't give it any right to be there, the decision to abort or not should be taken before the cell clump reaches a stage where it could be considered to be an individual person.

The clump of cells is a proto preson which will evolve into an actual living breathing crying etc person in 9 months. It is alive and will get more like a human baby everyday. Yes at present it is a symbiotic being which needs a host to survive and we can all agree that medical science has not become advanced enough yet that it can provide a host body for the fetus to live in

You ask who it will effect the most?

Woman discomfort , fat etc

Fetus, looses life

As for your last point about the appendix and yourself

You gave a choice and the potential hosts declined as is there right, before you were living there, also you can survive outside of appendix so a big difference between you and a fetus, a woman (aside from rape ) had a choice or at least knew the risks

doctoremma

professore wrote: »

Finally someone proposing something and not just picking holes in other peoples ideas. That makes a lot of sense to me. I might even vote for that over a more liberal alternative, but would be in favour of restricting it to 7 weeks.

To be clear, I'm coming from a viewpoint where the well-being of the mother overrides most, if not all, other concerns.

I wouldn't be so conservative in making a seven week limit. A lot of women will be excluded from the choice-making process, by dint of the fact that many women might not know they are pregnant before this time. I suspect this category includes a vast swathe of younger girls with their not-yet-regular cycles and lack of mature knowledge about their own bodies (and its signs). As these are the most vulnerable group in this context, I couldn't sanction this.

If most pregnancies are discovered between, say, 5-8 weeks, you need to allow time for the decision process. My personal conviction, and one that is shared by my close girlfriends, is that you 'know' straightaway if you don't want to proceed. Given a few weeks for appointments and arrangements and you're at 12 weeks. I have no idea how long a woman genuinely unsure about whether to proceed or not takes to make a decision - this is where removing extensive opportunity to prevaricate might lead to more acceptable outcomes all around. As Iguana said, 'elective' abortion at 24 weeks is vanishingly rare - a small percentage of these women will not know they are pregnant (it happens) but the rest have waited an agonisingly long time to make this decision, indicating their lack of certainty? A little bit of hurrying along wouldn't hurt (IMO).

I don't personally believe, based on my scientific knowledge, that a seven week fetus can feel pain. My reading of the subject leads me to an opinion that pain responses kick in at around 20 weeks. I'd go for this as a limit, in fact, I could probably go for a 18 week limit on 'elective' abortions (all with very clear exceptions in the case of later diagnostic testing, maternal health etc, the standard exemptions).

MagicMarker

Gurgle wrote: »

I'm ok with being different to every single other pro-lifer. Thanks.

Did you read the wikipedia entry on the morning after pill?
It is not an abortion pill. That's something different, clarified in detail on wikipedia.

You're right, my apologies. I was under the impression that the MAP prevents implantation.

Of course this brings us back to regular birth control pills, which can prevent implantation should fertilization occur. Obviously this would be a rare occurrence though.

professore wrote: »

You haven't told us your views on the subject so I'm not wasting my time replying.

Well, I'm pro-choice, what else would you like to know? I'm not surprised you don't want to reply though, I'm not sure how I would explain myself if I were in your shoes either.

Zombrex

Zamboni wrote: »

Did you see Prometheus recently?

Oh god, don't get me started. I recently (about a week after seeing that movie) had an open wound in my tummy after surgery that was packed with gauze. When the doctor came to pull the bundle of gauze out I made the mistake of looking down. I saw a massive hole in my stomach and the doctor pulling out a large white bundle covered in blood. Freaked me out no end.

Anyway, my only point is that I wake up every night screaming covered in sweat. Carry on ... :pac:

Zombrex

professore wrote: »

The part in bold is the crux of the matter for me.

It is relatively difficult to find an argument for why the foetus has the right to be in the woman's body. If we consider the foetus simply another person with the same rights as everyone else then it has no more right to be inside the woman without her permission than you or I do. The fact that it will die without being inside of her doesn't increase this right, I might die without your kidney but that doesn't mean I have a right to it. You can refuse to give me your kidney and I will die, that might be considered a crappy thing for you to do, but it is still your right. The foetus might die if it cannot be inside the mother, but that doesn't automatically mean the foetus has a right to breach the woman's right to bodily privacy any more than I have that right if I might die.

The closest argument against this is probably the responsibility of parenthood. Parents have special responsibility to their children that over rides some of their rights (such as the right to free movement, you can't piss off to Mexico and leave your children to fend for themselves). So it is theoretically possible to extend the responsibility to your children to the unborn child. This has ethical implications though. For example with such an axiom in place one would have to conclude that if I need a kidney my mother should be forced to give me one of hers, even against her will.

Penn

Sin City wrote: »

The clump of cells is a proto preson which will evolve into an actual living breathing crying etc person in 9 months. It is alive and will get more like a human baby everyday. Yes at present it is a symbiotic being which needs a host to survive and we can all agree that medical science has not become advanced enough yet that it can provide a host body for the fetus to live in

You ask who it will effect the most?

Woman discomfort , fat etc

Fetus, looses life

That's your overview of the effect of a woman on pregnancy? Discomfort, fat etc?

Once again, the effects that it has on a woman, no matter how large or how small, are the effects that the foetus cause, and if she does not want the foetus there, that is wholly unfair to be forced to go through that, when you cannot give any measurable indication of when that clump of cells becomes a person with rights.

Sin City wrote: »

As for your last point about the appendix and yourself

You gave a choice and the potential hosts declined as is there right, before you were living there, also you can survive outside of appendix so a big difference between you and a fetus, a woman (aside from rape ) had a choice or at least knew the risks

That's why I said I had typed it out but hadn't posted it. It's not a good comparison. The point I was trying to get across is that why should any woman be forced to be a host body for another entity they don't want? How would you like to be subjected to that? Do you have any idea what the body, both physically and emotionally goes through during pregnancy? And that's before you add in the fact that in this discussion, the woman doesn't even want the child in the first place.

Why place the rights of the foetus above the rights of the mother, when it can't even be agreed upon when the foetus actually gains those rights in the first place?

At what point does the fertilized egg become a person with rights? If it's straight away, then the morning after pill has to be considered to be every bit as wrong as abortion. If it's at approx 20 weeks then the foetus has no rights up to that point, so the mothers rights take full priority. If it's any point in between those two, then I'd ask you how you determined that point.

krudler

Zombrex wrote: »

Oh god, don't get me started. I recently (about a week after seeing that movie) had an open wound in my tummy after surgery that was packed with gauze. When the doctor came to pull the bundle of gauze out I made the mistake of looking down. I saw a massive hole in my stomach and the doctor pulling out a large white bundle covered in blood. Freaked me out no end.

Anyway, my only point is that I wake up every night screaming covered in sweat. Carry on ... :pac:

yeah but you were able to run around not a bother like 5 minutes later right? Notice how in that movie she doesnt call it an abortion, which it technically is, but a "removal of a foreign agent", probably didnt want to upset the fundies in the US, although being the movie basically gives two fingers to the idea god put us on earth I think their heads would have exploded before then.

fitz0

krudler wrote: »

the movie basically gives two fingers to the idea god put us on earth I think their heads would have exploded before then.

Not quite. You know the event referred to in the film that happened two thousand years ago that pissed the engineers of?

Turns out it was the Jesus thing. Ridley Scott pretty much confirmed it in an interview that we killed space Jesus. I'll see if I can find a link to the interview tomorrow. So essentially, the aliens are God.

krudler

fitz0 wrote: »

Not quite. You know the event referred to in the film that happened two thousand years ago that pissed the engineers of?

Turns out it was the Jesus thing. Ridley Scott pretty much confirmed it in an interview that we killed space Jesus. I'll see if I can find a link to the interview tomorrow. So essentially, the aliens are God.

Ah yeah I remember reading that, stupid movie, I had such high hopes for it and although its visually stunning the plot just gets stupider and stupider as it goes along, they also spent a trillion dollars sending the most inept group of scientists ever into space. Biologist who discovers the greatest discovery in the history of mankind, proof of aliens, and...he runs away cos the dead alien scares him, then goes poking a space cobra not a bother on him later. gah!

fitz0

My friends thought me weird that I was most annoyed by how poor at being scientists all the scientists were.

'Oh, I didn't find what I wanted to find, so instead of examining this awesome alien head, I'm going to drink champagne and sulk.'

What a tool.

krudler

fitz0 wrote: »

My friends thought me weird that I was most annoyed by how poor at being scientists all the scientists were.

'Oh, I didn't find what I wanted to find, so instead of examining this awesome alien head, I'm going to drink champagne and sulk.'

What a tool.

also what kind of scientists agree to go on a 4 year round trip in hyperspace and only find out why they're there after arriving in the planets orbit? stupid!

err...we've gone a bit off topic, theres a massive Prometheus thread in the film forum.

Bannasidhe

krudler wrote: »

also what kind of scientists agree to go on a 4 year round trip in hyperspace and only find out why they're there after arriving in the planets orbit? stupid!

err...we've gone a bit off topic, theres a massive Prometheus thread in the film forum.

No. Ye're grand *zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

:pac:

Sarky

Maybe they were creation scientists? All the signs are there; ignorance, lack of common sense, willingness to do and say stupid things without asking why...

fisgon

The key point is, Is the foetus a person?

To me, it's clear that objections to abortion are almost solely religious, and come from the doctrine that the soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception. Once something has a soul, it is a person, according to the anti-abortion lobby.

Of course there is not one single shred of evidence for (a) the existence of this soul or (b) the assertion that it enters the embryo at the moment of fusion of egg and sperm. Nothing.

Once you take that away, it's clear that first the embryo, and then the foetus, are potential human beings. The older it gets the closer it gets to being a person, but to call a two day old embryo - which is microscopic, has no gender, head, brain, nervous system, digestive tract, ears, mouth, limbs or heart - a person, is plainly ridiculous.

(Oh, and can we please stop calling them "Pro-lifers". They are not "pro" anything, they are Anti-Abortion. The term "pro-life" is a term that they want to portray themselves as, not an accurate description of their position)

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

That's your overview of the effect of a woman on pregnancy? Discomfort, fat etc?

Once again, the effects that it has on a woman, no matter how large or how small, are the effects that the foetus cause, and if she does not want the foetus there, that is wholly unfair to be forced to go through that, when you cannot give any measurable indication of when that clump of cells becomes a person with rights.

No its not how I view pregnancy but I was making a point.
Its true the mother should not be forced through with an unwanted child, but untill we have means for keeping that life alive outside of the mother she is responsible for that life

Penn wrote: »

That's why I said I had typed it out but hadn't posted it. It's not a good comparison. The point I was trying to get across is that why should any woman be forced to be a host body for another entity they don't want? How would you like to be subjected to that? Do you have any idea what the body, both physically and emotionally goes through during pregnancy? And that's before you add in the fact that in this discussion, the woman doesn't even want the child in the first place.

As above

Penn wrote: »

Why place the rights of the foetus above the rights of the mother, when it can't even be agreed upon when the foetus actually gains those rights in the first place?

At what point does the fertilized egg become a person with rights? If it's straight away, then the morning after pill has to be considered to be every bit as wrong as abortion. If it's at approx 20 weeks then the foetus has no rights up to that point, so the mothers rights take full priority. If it's any point in between those two, then I'd ask you how you determined that point.

My own opinion is the formation of zygot or perhaps even the fusion of the egg and the sperm is when a proto or potential person is formed and as such it should be awarded the right to life and the right to reach its full potential.

Sin City

fisgon wrote: »

The key point is, Is the foetus a person?

To me, it's clear that objections to abortion are almost solely religious, and come from the doctrine that the soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception. Once something has a soul, it is a person, according to the anti-abortion lobby.

Of course there is not one single shred of evidence for (a) the existence of this soul or (b) the assertion that it enters the embryo at the moment of fusion of egg and sperm. Nothing.

Once you take that away, it's clear that first the embryo, and then the foetus, are potential human beings. The older it gets the closer it gets to being a person, but to call a two day old embryo - which is microscopic, has no gender, head, brain, nervous system, digestive tract, ears, mouth, limbs or heart - a person, is plainly ridiculous.

(Oh, and can we please stop calling them "Pro-lifers". They are not "pro" anything, they are Anti-Abortion. The term "pro-life" is a term that they want to portray themselves as, not an accurate description of their position)

As I said Im an atheist with no church ideology, I dont declare that fetuses or adults for that matter have a soul or the pro life/anti abortion is mutally exclusive to the God Squad. As for your description, babies have been born without one or more of those organs(admittidly not all of them together) should they be labeled inhuman?

Turtwig

Sin City wrote: »

My own opinion is the formation of zygot or perhaps even the fusion of the egg and the sperm is when a proto or potential person is formed and as such it should be awarded the right to life and the right to reach its full potential.

Why though? Why should something with potential be treated as if it is already that something? To use an analogy why should someone who could become the President of the United States be treated right now in this very moment as if he actually is the President of the United States. To suggest something that has potential should be treated as if it is the equivalent of something that reached that potential is ludicrous. A potential person is not a person.

In a formal sense :
Why is Potential X the equivalent to X?

Mark Hamill

Zombrex wrote: »

It is relatively difficult to find an argument for why the foetus has the right to be in the woman's body. If we consider the foetus simply another person with the same rights as everyone else then it has no more right to be inside the woman without her permission than you or I do.

I dont understand where this perception of the foetus is coming from. "Permission" doesn't apply to the foetus growing in the mother by virtue of the fact that it is a biological outcome of an act the mother chooses to do. Its like getting putting on weight as a result of a bad diet - you don't question the right of fat to deposit on your stomach after you eat junk food. The foetus doesn't choose to be created, it's not its' fault that it's dependent on the mother to survive.

freedominacup

Sarky wrote: »

Whereabouts is the bit about infants under 1 month? That'll be a fun quote in the days to come.

Here.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/8428479/killing-newborns-comparable-to-abortion

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont understand where this perception of the foetus is coming from. "Permission" doesn't apply to the foetus growing in the mother by virtue of the fact that it is a biological outcome of an act the mother chooses to do. Its like getting putting on weight as a result of a bad diet - you don't question the right of fat to deposit on your stomach after you eat junk food. The foetus doesn't choose to be created, it's not its' fault that it's dependent on the mother to survive.

To extend your fat analogy. You don't force someone who gorged to excess, that doesn't want to be fat to remain fat. If the person want's to remove their fat they can try to do so via exercise, diet, surgery etc. In the woman's case she doesn't want the foetus or fat inside her, yet for some reason the foetus is given more privilege than fat. I don't understand that.


Also, I'd like to point out that I've eaten my fair share of junk food but I am not now, nor probably will ever be, fat. It's easy to think people are fat because of junk food (I'm not saying you're saying that) but some people have what others would regard as healthy diets and still get fat.