• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion? The final conclusions?

Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?

  • It should always be allowed

    Votes: 35 36.5%

  • It should never be allowed

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • It should be allowed within the 1st trimester only

    Votes: 9 9.4%

  • It should be allowed up to the 2nd trimester only

    Votes: 16 16.7%

  • It should be allowed within the 1st trimester health exceptions permitting

    Votes: 5 5.2%

  • It should be allowed up to the 2nd trimester health exceptions permitting

    Votes: 24 25.0%

  • It should be allowed only with health exceptions permitting such as death of parent

    Votes: 6 6.3%
  • Total voters
    96
*I tried to post these remarks yesterday, but my computer went down...then the thread took off again... Here it is anyway:

In America, we have Constitutionally portected rights. Those rights are afforded to "persons", and are enumbered and specified as "individual rights", within our Constitution.

No where does it say anything about "humans" deserving anything...

Therefore, proving whether something is or is not a 'human' is pointless.

In response to the person who asked whether or not medical advancements should allow for re-writing of abortion laws, well sure it should!

Back before modern medicine, someone was dead when they stopped breathing and the doctor couldn't find a heartbeat. After CPR was developed, doctors didn't 'give up' on a patient just because they weren't noticible alive. Today, an ER doctor would say "They aren't dead, until they are warm and dead." Meaning that when someone comes in 'cold', but not yet stiff, that they might try to warm the body and bring the person back, depending on how long they'd been down...

In any case, afixing the time of death has changed with the advancement of medical technology and understanding.

So, if we can change when someone is dead, based on our medical ability, then why not apply the same standards to the beginning of life???

And yes, someone who suffered a severe injury and who was beyond the reach of modern medicine WOULD indeed be dead faster or sooner than someone with the same injury who landed in a modern trama center.

Arguing what 'children' deserve upon birth into this world is also another goose chase, guys.

'People' born in America deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, I am sure I read that somewhere. They don't deserve good, smart, well-to-do parents who are going to protect them from every evil and provide their every want or desire. It would be nice if they did. I think we'd get better, more well adjusted adults out of the deal, but sadly our society has not yet progressed to that level yet...

Oh, and clumps of cell, do not a 'person' make.
 
EverLastingGodStopper said:
So, can you come out and say what your position is, please?
Click to expand...
I think abortion should be legal and allowable in the interests of the pregnant woman, probably up to about 20 weeks. I have quite a lot of agreement with the Canadian ideology that the state does not need to restrict abortion at all, because third-term abortions are extremely rare and largely self-regulating. However I'm not convinced—on balance—that an "anytime" law is just.

I think that governments should set and review the precise details of abortion law through their legislature—perhaps by consulting their electorates if that is the norm (it is not in the UK), and not by a country's judiciary or its constitution. I think that the latter risks a lack of legitimacy.

Abortion law is also not very amenable to international treaties on human rights IMO, nor to justification based on "absolutes" and "fundamentals".
 
acuity said:
I think abortion should be legal and allowable in the interests of the pregnant woman, probably up to about 20 weeks. I have quite a lot of agreement with the Canadian ideology that the state does not need to restrict abortion at all, because third-term abortions are extremely rare and largely self-regulating. However I'm not convinced—on balance—that an "anytime" law is just.

I think that governments should set and review the precise details of abortion law through their legislature—perhaps by consulting their electorates if that is the norm (it is not in the UK), and not by a country's judiciary or its constitution. I think that the latter risks a lack of legitimacy.

Abortion law is also not very amenable to international treaties on human rights IMO, nor to justification based on "absolutes" and "fundamentals".
Click to expand...
So, if I learn, at 7 months into my pregnancy, that the fetus inside of me has a medical condition that can not be corrected by modern medicine, and that if this pregnancy is carried to term, I will be giving birth to a defective infant that will only live a few painful hours before death, you think that the government should force me to have this baby instead of aborting the pregnancy?

I think this position is cruel. Why should the government force me to bear a defective child? I'm flabbergasted.
 
Since you quoted my post it's odd that you did not stop to read it.

Abortion law is also not very amenable [. . .] to justification based on "absolutes" and "fundamentals".
Click to expand...
It is extremely unlikely that you would be forced to have the baby. The law as I describe it is pretty much the extant law in many countries. Do you know of a precedent in Europe (or the US) where a woman has been so forced?

If I had said: "It is absolute, uncomplicated, B&W and here's the way it is folks!" then you would be well placed to take a shot at playing the "theory-semantics" game with my views. But I'm not interested, sorry about your flabbergastation. :)
 
acuity said:
It is extremely unlikely that you would be forced to have the baby. The law as I describe it is pretty much the extant law in many countries. Do you know of a precedent in Europe (or the US) where a woman has been so forced?
Click to expand...
I don't know about Europe, but most South American countries deny women legal access to abortion services, therefore, the women are forced under law to give birth to babies that they do not want.
 
I see that the definition of the fetus and its rights (or lack there of) vary from one country to another. Is there an international scientific or ethical concesus about it, say, at the UN?
 
acuity said:
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?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part about the womb?

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

Not necessary = serves no necessary purpose.
 
Pardalis said:
I see that the definition of the fetus and its rights (or lack there of) vary from one country to another. Is there an international scientific or ethical concesus about it, say, at the UN?
Click to expand...

Well, in China, once you have a child, your next fetus is valued less than an order of egg rolls.
 
nails said:
how so? I do not understand how being born is in the best interest of a fetus...
Click to expand...

This is a fascinating comment. Nobody UNDERSTANDS, and maybe that's why the fetus should be born.

By the way Nails, you seem to identify with an unwanted fetus, yet, in this forum, you have contributed a lot. You have certainly stimulated my brain.:)
 
The fact that the fetus doesn't understand renders the fetus's "best interest" irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom