Abortion? The final conclusions?

[EverLastingGodStopper]

That's why I voted for "It should be allowed within the 1st trimester health exceptions permitting". This is not a black and white issue, there is no true right or wrong answer.

What was not nice is your derogatory comment towards me, since I did agree on the legitimacy of the sources you submitted.

I have used measured language and taken great care not to resort to personal comments. Please show what derogatory comment I made to you, because I think you have misread or misunderstood me, if you believe that I have insulted you.

 

[Pardalis]

I have used measured language and taken great care not to resort to personal comments. Please show what derogatory comment I made to you, because I think you have misread or misunderstood me, if you believe that I have insulted you.

Oops! Sorry, this was intended for thaiboexerken.

You have been a very nice debater, ELGS.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Oops! Sorry, this was intended for thaiboexerken.

You have been a very nice debater, ELGS.

Thank you. I would still like for you to think your proposition through, to step back and consider the actual application of your proposed idea. You would have to amend the Constitution. You would have to detect pregnancies. You would have to force women to incubate unwanted fetuses. Is this what you want to do? Why? If not, then why do you state that you think fetuses should have a "right to live"?

 

[Pardalis]

Thank you. I would still like for you to think your proposition through, to step back and consider the actual application of your proposed idea. You would have to amend the Constitution. You would have to detect pregnancies. You would have to force women to incubate unwanted fetuses. Is this what you want to do? Why? If not, then why do you state that you think fetuses should have a "right to live"?

I am not enough knowledgable in Law to have a definite opinion on this. I would have to study this further. I never said I was 100% against abortion, but I think ideologically, the fetus's rights should be determined more clearly. We shouldn't just dismiss it just because it is not a full human yet. It just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I am not enough knowledgable in Law to have a definite opinion on this. I would have to study this further. I never said I was 100% against abortion, but I think ideologically, the fetus's rights should be determined more clearly. We shouldn't just dismiss it just because it is not a full human yet. It just doesn't sit well with me.

I encourage you to think about it with all seriousness, because it is a horrifying proposition to me, to have less rights than an entity that resides inside of me, to be subjected to incubate a fetus against my will, to be forced to breed. I have done it before, and I would rather die than do it again. I mean this literally.

 

[Pardalis]

I imagine this issue must be completely different from a woman's perspective. I respect that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Scientists never claim to know absolute certainties.

Are you absolutely certain about that? Do scientists think that it's just really probable that the earth is spherical?

Even though I totally agree with the evolution theory, no scientist ever claimed it was an absolute fact.

You are simply wrong. It is an absolute fact that evolution happens.

Stop trying to portray me as a "believer", you don't know me.

I only know what you post, and you seem to portray yourself as a believer.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We shouldn't just dismiss it just because it is not a full human yet. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Sounds like an emotional appeal to me. I could care less what would "sit well" with you. I'm interested in objective facts and conclusions based on those facts. So far, you're lacking in giving any facts to support your opinions that definitely seem to be based on emotion and belief.

 

[Katana]

I imagine this issue must be completely different from a woman's perspective. I respect that.

Sort of like how women might be better able to judge who should be Sears models and who are, quite frankly, hot bods?

Harumph, Pardalis.

 

[Pardalis]

Sure Katana...

 

[Pardalis]

Sounds like an emotional appeal to me. I could care less what would "sit well" with you. I'm interested in objective facts and conclusions based on those facts. So far, you're lacking in giving any facts to support your opinions that definitely seem to be based on emotion and belief.

This might be true. But when it comes to these more ethical issues, I don't think we can determine this purely with a scientific approach.

 

[Francesca R]

Evasion of the question . . .

It is not inside of the womb, though. That is another factor.

It is not separated from it's mother. It is not inside the womb but it is not separated form its mother. You said it was not a human being until after it was separated from its mother.

Why is it not OK to terminate if it is not a human being?

Technically, it is because the cord is a useless tether at that point. The umbilical cord serves no purpose after birth.

Incorrect. The umbilical cord continues supply oxygen and nutrition to the baby after emergence from the mother's body. The cord pulsates for a few minutes. Immediate cord clamping/cutting is not standard practice (in UK midwifery). It is not a useless tether in any sense. See here for a selection of articles.

I recommend you learn more about pregnancy and birth before you post further inaccurate information. It looks like your views are argued from ignorance.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is not separated from it's mother. It is not inside the womb but it is not separated form its mother. You said it was not a human being until after it was separated from its mother.

It is separated by distance from the womb.

Why is it not OK to terminate if it is not a human being?

It is not in the womb, thus it is a human being. It's been born at that point.

Incorrect. The umbilical cord continues supply oxygen and nutrition to the baby after emergence from the mother's body.

But it's not a necessary function of the cord. The baby is no longer dependent on a human life-support system. The cord is not necessary.

 

[steverino]

Yes, it is a black and white issue. Either abortion is wrong or it's right.

That's exactly what pro-lifers say. Now what?

 

[steverino]

Is the baby a citizen?

Sometimes. I think Conner Peterson was considerd a citizen in his father's double-murder, certainly an individual.

 

[skeptifem]

No. Thought I do argue that being born (into whatever circumstances) is virtually always more in a fetus' interest than not being born. I would say "always" but have not done exhaustive thought experiments about this.

how so? I do not understand how being born is in the best interest of a fetus, especially if they are born being unwanted. that can really mess with a child.

[ETA: Wait—you can't think of a reason? A woman can of course decide to have an abortion because it is in her interest and patently not in the interest of the child. There is nothing automatic whereby "her interest" = "the child's interest"]

What is in her best interest is in the best interest of the fetus. I honestly can not think of anything that is in the best interest of the mother and not her fetus (not child- its different when its still in her, although I cant think of a stronger influence on a kid than his/her parents).

And really if anyone knows what is in the fetus's best interest its going to be the woman carrying it.

I am not anti-abortion. However I think it can (virtually) never be rationally argued that abortion is in the interest of the fetus. I find that position dishonest. That's what I was bringing up in my response to you.

Again, I think it is better than the alternative—for the child.

There are some real nasty people in the world. they were fetuses once. Some people contribute literally nothing to society and hurt others, and usually do not have happy childhoods or good parents.

 

[Francesca R]

It is separated by distance from the womb. [. . .] It is not in the womb, thus it is a human being. It's been born at that point.

This qualifies your earlier statement about "separated" some. And introduces complexity. What about before the baby breathes its first breath? At that instant it is fully dependent on the cord. Human being?

But it's not a necessary function of the cord. The baby is no longer dependent on a human life-support system. The cord is not necessary.

"Not necessary" is different from "useless". Something of a backtrack.

Thank you for the replies.

 

[Francesca R]

how so? I do not understand how being born is in the best interest of a fetus, especially if they are born being unwanted. that can really mess with a child.

It can but it is not a foregone conclusion that it will. I go back to my earlier thought experiment:

"If it had been possible to query me about this, I would like to think I would have said "I want to be born! Even if my mother is a drug-addicted prostitute who will abandon me on a doorstep." What do you think you would have asked for?"

I honestly can not think of anything that is in the best interest of the mother and not her fetus

EG—Say the mother wants to go snowboarding in the 9th month of pregnancy because some friends of hers will be in Crans-Montana then and that is when the snow will be great, so she terminates the fetus with the attitude "I'll probably have a child next year".

And really if anyone knows what is in the fetus's best interest its going to be the woman carrying it.

I disagree, as per above example. I think I know that it is in this woman's fetus' best interest to be born. The law may allow her to abort, but this is because her interests take legal precedence, not because her interests are deemed to be the fetus' interests too. Note that she is not even legally required to judge whether abortion is in her fetus' interest. She may well agree that it isn't.

There are some real nasty people in the world. they were fetuses once. Some people contribute literally nothing to society and hurt others, and usually do not have happy childhoods or good parents.

Even if I were to concede that there is a correlation and a causation there—it cannot be used to justify the statement that abortion is ever in the fetus' interest. What you are suggesting is that it might (sometimes) be in society's interest to prevent some individuals from having been born. But making the assumption that an unwanted baby will be a net negative externality on society (and so that this hypothesis justifies termination in society's interest) is something I would need to see hard substantiation of. To my knowledge—no such substantiation exists. Quite a lot against the notion exists though.

Was Hitler unwanted? Stalin? Mobutu Sese-seko? Pol-Pot? Bin Laden? Bush? Jeffrey Dahmer? I have no idea.

I would be against any notion that social engineering is viable grounds for abortion. It happens in some societies. i thoroughly reject it as indecent and abhorrent and illiberal. I do understand that you are not making the case—but your points invoke this issue.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

EG—Say the mother wants to go snowboarding in the 9th month of pregnancy because some friends of hers will be in Crans-Montana then and that is when the snow will be great, so she terminates the fetus with the attitude "I'll probably have a child next year".

Do you really think that women have late-term abortions with such caprice? There are only 600 3rd trimester abortions performed annually in the USA, usually for fetal anomaly or health risk to the pregnant woman. Are you saying that the law should force women carrying defective fetuses to complete a doomed pregnancy, or should be forced by law to carry a dangerous pregnancy to term even though it may kill her, on the off chance that some selfish, callous twit might have non-medical reasons for ending her pregnancy?

If this is not what you are saying, then please explain your position. On what grounds should the government force a woman to be pregnant, and why?

 

[Francesca R]

EverLastingGodStopper—Would you please take care to disconnect what I say from your conjecture of what I might think. It would then be unnecessary to have to do it for you.

Do you really think that women have late-term abortions with such caprice?

Who said the abortion in this hypothetical was third term? The snowboarding trip may have been planned the previous summer and the abortion carried out at 13 weeks. I don't think this example is thoroughly implausible.

Are you saying that the law should force women carrying defective fetuses to complete a doomed pregnancy, or should be forced by law to carry a dangerous pregnancy to term even though it may kill her, on the off chance that some selfish, callous twit might have non-medical reasons for ending her pregnancy?

Of course not. If I had said any such things you would be able to read them in my posts.

If this is not what you are saying, then please explain your position. On what grounds should the government force a woman to be pregnant, and why?

I have stated no position on that at all. If inclined at some point, I may state it. Otherwise I should be grateful if you could avoid presuming it.

One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact