Abortion

[Famine]

Next time I'm on the train sitting in a priority seat I'm going to refuse to give up my seat for a heavily pregnant woman. Why should I give up my comfort

It's usually a condition of your ticket.

 

[Imari]

Next time I'm on the train sitting in a priority seat I'm going to refuse to give up my seat for a heavily pregnant woman. Why should I give up my comfort...

It's called "not being an asshole".

 

[KSaiyu]

I didn't really want to argue that point. It was to show how in the space of one post someone went from calling it a "foetus" to a "baby" - from unwanted to wanted. What is to happen if it becomes unwanted again. Is the path reversible from cells not to dissimilar to cultured liver cells to something zzz called a baby?

 

[zzz_pt]

I should have wrote "baby" and not baby. Because, in fact, a foetus only becames a baby after the birth.

 

[FoolKiller]

I didn't really want to argue that point. It was to show how in the space of one post someone went from calling it a "foetus" to a "baby" - from unwanted to wanted. What is to happen if it becomes unwanted again. Is the path reversible from cells not to dissimilar to cultured liver cells to something zzz called a baby?

This is a point that Ron Paul made in one of his books. As part of his medical training he witnessed an abortion. The fetus was set aside in a pan and ignored it as it moved around and died. Then he witnessed a premature birth that was at the same stage of pregnancy as the abortion. The medical team rushed to save the baby's life as if it were the most important thing in the world.

As a doctor, he felt that he could not reconcile the different actions with his oath. Either it was a human worth saving or it wasn't, but it could not be both.

I think that since he was trained years ago that it was likely before the law drew a line at late-term abortions, and I think most people would have an issue seeing a third-trimester abortion.

 

[Danoff]

This is a point that Ron Paul made in one of his books. As part of his medical training he witnessed an abortion. The fetus was set aside in a pan and ignored it as it moved around and died. Then he witnessed a premature birth that was at the same stage of pregnancy as the abortion. The medical team rushed to save the baby's life as if it were the most important thing in the world.

As a doctor, he felt that he could not reconcile the different actions with his oath. Either it was a human worth saving or it wasn't, but it could not be both.

At that stage it is property worth saving or not depending on the wishes of the property owner.

 

[zzz_pt]

At that stage it is property worth saving or not depending on the wishes of the property owner.

I understand but who would be taking care of them?

 

[KSaiyu]

This is a point that Ron Paul made in one of his books. As part of his medical training he witnessed an abortion. The fetus was set aside in a pan and ignored it as it moved around and died. Then he witnessed a premature birth that was at the same stage of pregnancy as the abortion. The medical team rushed to save the baby's life as if it were the most important thing in the world.

As a doctor, he felt that he could not reconcile the different actions with his oath. Either it was a human worth saving or it wasn't, but it could not be both.

I think that since he was trained years ago that it was likely before the law drew a line at late-term abortions, and I think most people would have an issue seeing a third-trimester abortion.

It's that type of attitude that I fear we, as a society (in Britain at least) are losing or have already lost. And what replaces that moral vacuum in the future could be something far worse.

 

[Carbonox]

This is a point that Ron Paul made in one of his books. As part of his medical training he witnessed an abortion. The fetus was set aside in a pan and ignored it as it moved around and died. Then he witnessed a premature birth that was at the same stage of pregnancy as the abortion. The medical team rushed to save the baby's life as if it were the most important thing in the world.

As a doctor, he felt that he could not reconcile the different actions with his oath. Either it was a human worth saving or it wasn't, but it could not be both.

I think that since he was trained years ago that it was likely before the law drew a line at late-term abortions, and I think most people would have an issue seeing a third-trimester abortion.

That alone should already show the difference between a fetus and a baby. The former will not survive outside of its mother's body and, while harsh to say, fits the description of a parasite, therefore it's not a human.

 

[KSaiyu]

Thinking like that would lead to no development in neonatal medicine. And I'm sure you wouldn't correct parents of a premature baby born within our abortion limits (24 weeks) that it's technically a foetus. Still, it would be better than labelling it a parasite. Much like ITU patients I'm sure.

 

[zzz_pt]

Probably in future we'll be able to grow healthy fetous in labs without any problems for women. I don't know. That's what I've been hearing from some scientists in some debates on this topic.

 

[Danoff]

I understand but who would be taking care of them?

No one? The parents? I'm not sure you followed. Up until the fetus/baby is separated from the mother, it is the property of the mother. If she wants the baby, everyone tries help. If she doesn't, it gets aborted.

Thinking like that would lead to no development in neonatal medicine.

Only if nobody wanted to have a baby anymore.

 

[FoolKiller]

That alone should already show the difference between a fetus and a baby. The former will not survive outside of its mother's body and, while harsh to say, fits the description of a parasite, therefore it's not a human.

Neither will survive without intervention. They are the same, except for the parent's wants.

 

[Omnis]

At that stage it is property worth saving or not depending on the wishes of the property owner.

Wow, really? At what point do you confer personhood again?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Wow, really? At what point do you confer personhood again?

You don't want to know that answer, that's why I stopped talking in this thread long ago. There are some things even I just walk away form and rather not argue.

 

[nobuffalo]

What if in a lab you can grow a person from conception to child or even adulthood but they must always be physically attached to a life support system to survive, do they at any point have rights?

@Omnis, I think this is what you're asking.

Somewhere around 6-9 months after birth. We draw the line at birth because it is earlier than necessary and convenient.

 

[zzz_pt]

No one? The parents? I'm not sure you followed. Up until the fetus/baby is separated from the mother, it is the property of the mother. If she wants the baby, everyone tries help. If she doesn't, it gets aborted.

I read "and" where you wrote "or" in you previous post. My mistake.

 

[Famine]

This is a point that Ron Paul made in one of his books. As part of his medical training he witnessed an abortion. The fetus was set aside in a pan and ignored it as it moved around and died. Then he witnessed a premature birth that was at the same stage of pregnancy as the abortion. The medical team rushed to save the baby's life as if it were the most important thing in the world.

As a doctor, he felt that he could not reconcile the different actions with his oath. Either it was a human worth saving or it wasn't, but it could not be both.

The same thing occurs with adults. Adults who have a DNAR are left to die, while those who don't have medics striving to keep them alive.

It's not particularly difficult to reconcile - particularly when you note that DNAR and termination of end-of-life care decisions are often left to relatives, especially with vulnerable and neurologically compromised adults. The people nominated to defend the rights of the individual determine whether the individual should receive life-saving care or not, adult, child or neonate.

 

[Dude27]

The best fact of all is that if it was males who gave birth, abortion would be legal in 100% of this male-dominated world. So, to all males here who have a negative opinion on abortion, until you can give birth yourself, SHUT UP! More women in this world die because of clandestine abortion (because of disgusting anti-abortion laws) and post-partum depression than abortions, WHERE IS THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE?

 

[Famine]

The best

opinion

of all is that if it was males who gave birth, abortion would be legal in 100% of this male-dominated world.

And it's not really the "best" since it doesn't actually advance any particular argument especially well.

So, to all males here who have a negative opinion on abortion, until you can give birth yourself, SHUT UP!

Nor does this.

More women in this world die because of clandestine abortion (because of disgusting anti-abortion laws) and post-partum depression than abortions, WHERE IS THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE?

But that's a reasonable point. If one that has already been made several times in this thread's history.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, really? At what point do you confer personhood again?

@casey_2005 found it.

The question is whether you're referring to legal personhood or moral personhood. I draw the line earlier for the legal variety to make sure that we don't run afoul of the moral version since it's a fuzzy line that's slightly different for each child.

The legal variety is at separation of the umbilical - that is, that's what I would like to see as the legal point at which personhood is recognized. Morality comes into play a bit later, when higher order brain functions and self awareness develop. Children are born when they are, not because they are necessarily ready to be born, but because if we waited longer they'd kill the mother due to head size. The 3 months following birth are often referred to as the "fourth trimester", and if you've ever had a baby that young you'll know that it's an apt description. It really is like a fetus that happens to be outside the mother.

 

[FoolKiller]

The same thing occurs with adults. Adults who have a DNAR are left to die, while those who don't have medics striving to keep them alive.

It's not particularly difficult to reconcile - particularly when you note that DNAR and termination of end-of-life care decisions are often left to relatives, especially with vulnerable and neurologically compromised adults. The people nominated to defend the rights of the individual determine whether the individual should receive life-saving care or not, adult, child or neonate.

There is one difference. One is healthy for its life stage, the other is not.

 

[KSaiyu]

There is one difference. One is healthy for its life stage, the other is not.

Working on a ward in which DNACPR decisions are made every few days I agree, it's a huge difference.

Interesting to hear views on this story (not about some NHS trust's decision to give her a boob job, I'm pretty sure that will be unanimous)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tion-shed-known-wasnt-girl.html#ixzz362l48gB5

A pregnant would-be glamour model who had a breast enlargement on the NHS has admitted she is drinking and smoking because she is expecting a baby boy, not a girl.

Josie Cunningham, 23, said if she knew she was having a son earlier, she would have gone through with the abortion she considered after being asked to appear on Big Brother.

As a result, the mother-of-two has turned to alcohol and cigarettes to get over her disappointment.

Her body, her choice? Would the commentators have preferred she do the decent thing and abort in privacy?

 

[LeMansAid]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tion-shed-known-wasnt-girl.html#ixzz362l48gB5

Going purely on the article (so admittedly taken with a grain of salt), she seems like an all round disgusting person. Maybe it will eventuate that the smoking causes a birth defect, and she ends up with new perspective of being less self-involved and utterly vapid. Some people are so far gone that it takes that much to "buy" their conscience. "Mysterious ways".

Side note: Is that van in the photo full of defective PS3 consoles? I can't quite see the D on the license plate.

 

[Danoff]

There is one difference. One is healthy for its life stage, the other is not.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

 

[DK]

Working on a ward in which DNACPR decisions are made every few days I agree, it's a huge difference.

Interesting to hear views on this story (not about some NHS trust's decision to give her a boob job, I'm pretty sure that will be unanimous)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tion-shed-known-wasnt-girl.html#ixzz362l48gB5

Her body, her choice? Would the commentators have preferred she do the decent thing and abort in privacy?

Ah, the Daily Mail. The bastion of British reason. To the Daily Mail's employees, directors and executives, those on social welfare are Untermenschen.

Yes, it's her body, her choice. Just because Josie Cunningham exists doesn't mean we should immediately tighten up abortion laws.

 

[sammy neuman]

@Famine ,@zzz_pt , Thank you for the replies. As I have not stated my position yet in this thread, I suppose I should. Knowing a human foetus, unless disturbed by an outside agency (and I know the exceptions, we had a still-born at 5 months and it was a good thing), will develop into a unique individual. As it starts with genetic material that is recognizably human, and develops from there, I, being in favor of maximum individual human rights and freedoms in all situations (while recognizing that no right can be unconstrained), cannot find a time after conception where I can draw a line and say, "this is not/and will not be a person, therefore, it has no rights."

 

[Famine]

As I have not stated my position yet in this thread, I suppose I should. Knowing a human foetus, unless disturbed by an outside agency (and I know the exceptions, we had a still-born at 5 months and it was a good thing), will develop into a unique individual.

It requires an outside agency - the human womb.

As it starts with genetic material that is recognizably human, and develops from there, I, being in favor of maximum individual human rights and freedoms in all situations (while recognizing that no right can be unconstrained), cannot find a time after conception where I can draw a line and say, "this is not/and will not be a person, therefore, it has no rights."

As it is already an adult and you, being in favour of maximum human individual rights and freedoms in all situations (while being under the misapprehension that no right can be unconstrained), cannot find a time after conception where you can draw a line and say "this female is not a person, therefore it has no rights"...

 

[KSaiyu]

Ah, the Daily Mail. The bastion of British reason. To the Daily Mail's employees, directors and executives, those on social welfare are Untermenschen.

Yes, it's her body, her choice. Just because Josie Cunningham exists doesn't mean we should immediately tighten up abortion laws.

More to show the fallibility of those making comment. Seeking publicity whatever cost is increasingly becoming a career choice for a sizable minority. Why is the public suddenly thinking about "the unborn baby"? Is it simply because this career choice is offensive to us?

 

[sammy neuman]

@Famine: "It requires an outside agency..." Indeed it does. Not only does it require a womb, it requires a placenta, which serves as the interface between two individuals.
Rather than edit an existing post (#807), I shall make some clarifications. The vague terms 'it' and 'this' should be understood in this context as 'the unborn human, from zygote to birth.
As for 'unconstrained rights', I speak in terms of interpersonal/societal interactions, and more specifically, American notions of such. You have exposed me as guilty of unconsciously presuming that 'you think like me'. My apologies.
@Famine: "This female is not a person..." As this statement is in quotations, I'm not certain whether it is an egregious misquote, a bad paraphrase, a comment on my composition, or an indication that perhaps I'm implying that the mother at some point has no rights. If the latter is the case, I assure you that I mean to imply no such thing.
As I consider the child to be an independent entity from the zygote stage forward, the child is not a part of it's mother, and has rights. These rights are not superior to the mothers' rights, but not inferior to the mothers' rights either.
From that stand point, I do not object to abortion per/se. I object to abortion as a form of birth-control or to eliminate an inconvenience.