Abortion

[KSaiyu]

You wouldn't be squeamish if you saw what a surgical abortion a few weeks before your 20 week limit actually involved?

 

[DK]

I'm squeamish when it comes to seeing any sort of surgery, full stop. I still don't use my squeamishness to call for surgery to be banned, though.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, that's my basis. After 20 weeks I'd be a bit more squeamish about "abortion on demand", but if the mother's health/life is threatened or the foetus is unlikely to survive without major (possibly even fatal) abnormalities, I would have no qualms about it.

We terminate lots of life that can feel pain. Cows, for example, are slaughtered well after their nervous systems feel pain. Scientists even think they can register "pain" in trees. So why the pain threshold?

And why is it ok to terminate life if it doesn't feel pain. If I slip you a pill that would kill you painlessly, I'm still a murderer.

 

[DK]

Well, to be honest, I don't see foetuses as "fully alive". Before the 20 week stage they're still dependent on the mother for survival.

 

[Danoff]

Well, to be honest, I don't see foetuses as "fully alive". Before the 20 week stage they're still dependent on the mother for survival.

What happens when medically they're never dependent on the mother for survival? What happens when they can be grown in a lab? The moment the cells start dividing they must be kept alive?

 

[Imari]

What happens when medically they're never dependent on the mother for survival? What happens when they can be grown in a lab? The moment the cells start dividing they must be kept alive?

"Your Honor, I have doctors willing to testify that there were in fact TWO cells present on the night that Colonel Mustard performed the procedure. Your Honor, I submit that Colonel Mustard is in fact, the murderer. With the candlestick, in the library."

 

[DK]

What happens when medically they're never dependent on the mother for survival? What happens when they can be grown in a lab? The moment the cells start dividing they must be kept alive?

Well, that solves the problem of the unwanted pregnancy, doesn't it?

 

[frenzal]

To be honest I don't see medically/scientifically/legally time frames within which an embryo/foetus is determined as not yet geing a human being, and thus able to legally be aborted, as relevant. The reality is, from the moment insemination occurs, a human being IS in the PROCESS of being formed.

So yes, I am anti-abortion. I would like to think most people are pro-life. And yes there are those who say it is the woman's body and she can do with it as she wishes....to those I would say that there is also a forming humans body to be given consideration as well.

 

[Famine]

To be honest I don't see medically/scientifically/legally time frames within which an embryo/foetus is determined as not yet geing a human being and thus able to legally be aborted as relevant. The reality is, from the moment insemination occurs, a human being IS in the PROCESS of being formed.

The process is not inevitable.

So yes, I am anti-abortion. I would like to think most people are pro-life. And yes there are those who say it is the woman's body and she can do with it as she wishes....to those I would say that there is also a forming humans body to be given consideration as well.

Why is equal weighting given to an actual human being and a (harmful) biological process? Why do we get to make decisions for someone else's body based on what might happen?

 

[frenzal]

The process is not inevitable.Why is equal weighting given to an actual human being and a (harmful) biological process? Why do we get to make decisions for someone else's body based on what might happen?

And why do you feel the need to make argument purely for the sake of argument? Based on your immediate appearance the last few times I have posted in this sub-forum I would begin to class your appearance when I post as mischievous. Play your argumentative games with someone else. You obviously enjoy doing so from what I have seen from time to time.

 

[Famine]

And why do you feel the need to make argument purely for the sake of argument?

It's upon debate that resolutions are found.

Based on your immediate appearance the last few times I have posted in this sub-forum I would begin to class your appearance when I post as mischievous.

As you wish. I've got absolutely no idea who you are though.

Have a read through this thread though - you only have to go back to the last time this thread was active to find my last post in it...

Play your argumentative games with someone else. You obviously enjoy doing so from what I have seen from time to time.

I certainly do enjoy debate.

Your opinion is neither special nor protected from comment. If you cannot handle having your position questioned, do not state it - particularly in a forum dedicated to opinions... If you post it, it will be questioned - and you will offer no directive on who may question it.

Feel free to address the points and questions.

 

[frenzal]

It's upon debate that resolutions are found.

There is nothing to resolve here...I have a belief and put my view forward based on that.

I certainly do enjoy debate.

Your opinion is neither special nor protected from comment. If you cannot handle having your position questioned, do not state it - particularly in a forum dedicated to opinions... If you post it, it will be questioned - and you will offer no directive on who may question it.

Feel free to address the points and questions.

Your presumptuous to infer that I believe my opinion is 'special nor protected'. I have no such belief. You didn't question my position, you simply sought to make argument...sorry, debate.... based on technicalities in my statement. This is NOT respectful and indicative of someone just looking to be mischievous. I stated my position regarding the OP, you neither questioned my position or/of belief nor stated your own.

I don't know that I've ever put out a directive regarding who may question my opinion so I don't know that it was deserving of having a big stick waved at it....in this case my opinion (which was actually a stance based on a belief) wasn't questioned at all.

To answer your original points..inevitability of the process is irrelevant as a human being has begun to form. That formation if allowed will move through the developmental stages unless unforeseen medical issues arise. That is the life process. Sometimes it doesn't work out that well.

And I'm honestly not sure or even understand why you would raise any point of equal weighting...I've placed no weighting here at any stage or suggested that decisions must be made for anybody else...again, the what might happen I am not sure is even relevant.

 

[Famine]

There is nothing to resolve here...I have a belief and put my view forward based on that.

And I questioned it.

Your presumptuous to infer that I believe my opinion is 'special nor protected'. I have no such belief.

Then when questioned on your opinion, don't avoid the questions and instead post that the questioner is out to get you for some reason.

You didn't question my position

Except with questions.

Since you actually addressed the questions this time, let us move to those answers.

To answer your original points..inevitability of the process is irrelevant as a human being has begun to form.

Why is it irrelevant?

That formation if allowed will move through the developmental stages unless unforeseen medical issues arise. That is the life process. Sometimes it doesn't work out that well.

You agree then that it is not inevitable. Surely you would agree then that it is not at your fiat to risk a real human being's life on what might happen?

And I'm honestly not sure or even understand why you would raise any point of equal weighting...I've placed no weighting here at any stage or suggested that decisions must be made for anybody else...

The concept of refusing to allow a human being to determine what they wish to do with their body because there might be another human being growing inside it is exactly that - the application of equal weighting on the proto-human's life with the real human's life. It's a determination that the real human may not act because they risk the proto-human, giving the lives equal weight with one another.

"Pro-life" (anti-abortionism) is the stance that the foetal life is equally weighted with the human life, based only on the potential (not inevitability) of foetal existence to develop into human life.

How have you arrived at this position?

 

[ChipChaserJ]

Probably best not to feed trolls, otherwise they have more energy to reproduce.

I was hoping people would find it funny, everyone else was posing real heavy stuff and I wanted to lighten the mood a little. I failed, sorry.

 

[Danoff]

To answer your original points..inevitability of the process is irrelevant as a human being has begun to form. That formation if allowed will move through the developmental stages unless unforeseen medical issues arise.

A couple of bones to pick with this statement.

First of all, the development after insemination will often halt on its own for no apparent reason at all - at least not that we understand. I wouldn't call this "unforeseen medical issues" either. Lots of embryos stop developing on their own in short order (after just a few days). Most people don't realize this because it doesn't even turn into a miscarriage. Embryos have to get quite far along in their development before they'll even implant so that they can eventually become a miscarriage. You'd be surprised just how tenuous the development can be to get an embryo to develop enough cells to work its way up to even being noticed.

Second of all. You can create an embryo in a lab. I've had dozens created in various labs (none of which turned into human beings despite every effort). Those embryos will die on their own if not put into a uterus after 3-5 days of development. The lack of transferring those embryos into a uterus is not an unforeseen medical issue. Consider the following real world scenario that happened to me:

You've inseminated 12 embryos in a lab. 4 of them stopped dividing in the first day. 3 of them appear to be still dividing, but so slowly that they will never develop far enough to actually implant - and are basically dead already, they just don't know it. That leaves 5 embryos that need to be transferred into a uterus, frozen, or discarded. Now you have a choice.

Do you transfer 5 and risk the health of all of them? Say one splits and you end up with 6 fetuses in one womb - you're likely to end up with medical complications to all 6 whereas if you just transferred 1 and it split, you'd still have a good chance of a healthy pregnancy.

So do you transfer 1 and freeze the rest? Freezing costs money (it has a maintenance charge too - because it has to be kept in a facility that can keep it frozen, and for liability purposes that facility needs to be in an earthquake-proof room and capable of generating its own power in a sustained blackout). It's not a trivial process. Freezing also introduces risk to the embryos themselves, as some will not develop normally after they are thawed.

So do you transfer 1 and discard the rest? That's abortion is it not?

That's not even to introduce the complication of the abnormal embryos. You've defined those as eventual human life as well (even though, scientifically, it's obvious that they will not be). So shall we find uteruses for the 5 normal embryos AND the 3 abnormal ones?

The answer my wife and I gave was to transfer all 5 (because we knew we would not get 6). We were lucky to have a doctor that was even willing to do this. Guess how many of those survived to even become a miscarriage. Zero.

Embryos are not human beings. I've been part of the termination of an abnormal embryo that survived long enough to implant and even show up on an ultrasound but which was not currently developing (but which was also not dead). My wife and I terminated that embryo even though it was not dead and we were intentionally trying to have a child (and spending gobs of money to do so). Biology is a much messier thing than you imagine with all sorts of weird possibilities.

 

[Bc4]

I'm all for abortion, might sound mean or selfish but there's too many people in the world already

Women will know what they do with the aliens growing in their belly

Or maybe i'm just a madman

 

[KSaiyu]

To be honest I don't see medically/scientifically/legally time frames within which an embryo/foetus is determined as not yet geing a human being, and thus able to legally be aborted, as relevant. The reality is, from the moment insemination occurs, a human being IS in the PROCESS of being formed.

So yes, I am anti-abortion. I would like to think most people are pro-life. And yes there are those who say it is the woman's body and she can do with it as she wishes....to those I would say that there is also a forming humans body to be given consideration as well.

I think we need to move past this separating into 2 camps if we ever want to move the debate forward. The reality is to be "pro life" you would oppose all processes hindering life - and this could be argued to include opposing DNACPR decisions on terminally ill/geriatric patients against medical opinion. Strictly "Pro choice" would allow abortion right up until birth if it's the mother's wish.

I doubt many fall into either category.

 

[Danoff]

I think we need to move past this separating into 2 camps if we ever want to move the debate forward. The reality is to be "pro life" you would oppose all processes hindering life - and this could be argued to include opposing DNACPR decisions on terminally ill/geriatric patients against medical opinion. Strictly "Pro choice" would allow abortion right up until birth if it's the mother's wish.

I doubt many fall into either category.

I'm in the latter category.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Fetuses don't get a full compliment of human rights until they reach 21 years of age in the US (+9 months or +7 months depending on where you start counting from).

Replied from the "Guns" thread to split the sub-topic

At what point does the fetus become human?

 

[Danoff]

Replied from the "Guns" thread to split the sub-topic

At what point does the fetus become human?

Well, genetically it's human before it becomes a fetus. You'll note that not all humans have rights though - people who live in a persistive vegetative state, for example, do not have rights (also criminals, and children lack some rights as well). Though with death or loss of brain function comes some interesting factors involving the rights you had while you were alive - many of the contracts that you set up during life persist after you die, only transferring ownership.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well, genetically it's human before it becomes a fetus. You'll note that not all humans have rights though - people who live in a persistive vegetative state, for example, do not have rights. Though with death or loss of brain function comes some interesting factors involving the rights you had while you were alive - many of the contracts that you set up during life persist after you die, only transferring ownership.

I guess that leads to the other end of the same argument, when do you stop being a person with a right to life.

To go back to the 'beginning', consider the fetus of an American mother residing in America; at some point during its gestation that fetus will attain legal recognition as a person and some of the protections that that brings even before birth.

At what point in the pregnancy should that happen?

 

[Danoff]

I guess that leads to the other end of the same argument, when do you stop being a person with a right to life.

When you lose the ability or will to recognize the rights of others - this stems from the derivation of rights.

To go back to the 'beginning', consider the fetus of an American mother residing in America; at some point during its gestation that fetus will attain legal recognition as a person and some of the protections that that brings even before birth.
At what point in the pregnancy should that happen?

At no point in the pregnancy should that happen.

 

[TenEightyOne]

At no point in the pregnancy should that happen.

Okay, to throw an exceptional case in;

A hospital becomes aware an unborn baby at 7.5 months is at risk of being in significant pain, distress, and of dying in that manner over the next three weeks after the mother is brought into their ER having collapsed in a store.

The mother and father, both natural American citizens, hold religious convictions that prevent any kind of medical intervention.

In the UK the child could become a 'ward of court' and could be delivered for its own protection. A mental health case recently had some similar 'ward of court' elements, very distressing and difficult for all.

I'm not sure what a US court might find in that kind of case.

Based on what you know, what do you think they would find, and what do you think they should find? Alternately, if it shouldn't go to court is the unborn baby entitled to any protection?

 

[Danoff]

Okay, to throw an exceptional case in;

A hospital becomes aware an unborn baby at 7.5 months is at risk of being in significant pain, distress, and of dying in that manner over the next three weeks after the mother is brought into their ER having collapsed in a store.

The mother and father, both natural American citizens, hold religious convictions that prevent any kind of medical intervention.

In the UK the child could become a 'ward of court' and could be delivered for its own protection. A mental health case recently had some similar 'ward of court' elements, very distressing and difficult for all.

I'm not sure what a US court might find in that kind of case.

Based on what you know, what do you think they would find, and what do you think they should find? Alternately, if it shouldn't go to court is the unborn baby entitled to any protection?

I don't know what the court would do. I can tell you that if the mother and father (the only people with rights in this case) don't want any kind of medical intervention, they shouldn't get any.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If the mother and father (the only people with rights in this case) don't want any kind of medical intervention, they shouldn't get any.

Okay, understood. Expanding the hypothesis...

Her twin sister (what are the odds) is in the same hospital with a baby of the same age but already born (its age is 7.5 months from conception). The baby is suffering from exactly the same mystery hypothetical illness and will die in the same timeframe and in the same lingering painful way, unless treated.

This baby's parents share the same religious views and don't want medical intervention.

Should the courts allow medical intervention against the wishes of that baby?

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm in the latter category.

I'm a subset of the former.

 

[Danoff]

Okay, understood. Expanding the hypothesis...

Her twin sister (what are the odds) is in the same hospital with a baby of the same age but already born (its age is 7.5 months from conception). The baby is suffering from exactly the same mystery hypothetical illness and will die in the same timeframe and in the same lingering painful way, unless treated.

This baby's parents share the same religious views and don't want medical intervention.

Should the courts allow medical intervention against the wishes of that baby?

No.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No.

Okay, so the child (an American citizen) can not have medical intervention against the parent's wishes until when? Legal adulthood (18yo)?

 

[Danoff]

Okay, so the child (an American citizen) can not have medical intervention against the parent's wishes until when? Legal adulthood (18yo)?

How about until they can pay for it or find someone to pay for it?

 

[TenEightyOne]

How about until they can pay for it or find someone to pay for it?

I meant before they were 18. I know American adults have to fund their own health, but children belong to the country presumably? It would be pretty barbaric otherwise