Abortion right or wrong

[LeoXiao]

Once that baby comes out, it is its own being. Until then, the mother should have full rights over her own body.

See, this is the problem that has been making this argument go on so damn long. Lots of people don't agree on the line that you (and many others) have drawn between human and inhuman. And nobody can be said to be "right" simply because the categorizations are fundamentally arbitrary.

I'm not part of my mom anymore, not connected to her physically, but I'm dependent on her for food and shelter. I'm probably psychologically dependent on her as well. So if I wanted to, I could make a line there, and say "my mom has the right to abort me since I'm still dependent to her." I probably wouldn't say that though, since I don't believe that's a good place to draw the line.

How far do you want to go? Physical, Financial, Ethical, and considerations are all affecting the situation; my point is that you can't just choose one of them (physical) and make a decision based upon that.

[Deso]

Honestly.......I think it's wrong....you know human life blah blah........BUT-
1. If they was stupid enough to do it....they get the kid....it's a consequense.......
2.If it was not up to them......the abortions should be justified.......
3.If it's religion go with it and so on....

It's truely up to the parents......but I still think it's wrong......

[Anh_Minh]

Demongod: Yeah. And what if a woman does something to her unborn fetus that won't kill, but cripple it, and thus have negative consequences on what's undeniably a separate human being?

Originally Posted by Deso

Honestly.......I think it's wrong....you know human life blah blah........BUT-
1. If they was stupid enough to do it....they get the kid....it's a consequense.......
2.If it was not up to them......the abortions should be justified.......

I feel like a broken record, but:
- on what grounds would abortion be justified in case of rape and not in case of consensual sex?
- abortion is just as much a consequence as having a baby. You don't lose your free will upon becoming pregnant.

3.If it's religion go with it and so on....

It's truely up yo the parents......but I still think it's wrong......

Your religion and your feelings are irrelevant. Unless it's you who's pregnant, of course.

On a semi-related subject... This thread is 36 pages long. What makes you, and others like you, think that something as simplistic as "I think X" hasn't been posted and answered to ad nauseam?

[Deso]

Yes, rape or being forced to have sex would be a justification(mentioned in my earlier statement)......if you never get pregnant you would never need to get an abortion.....yes ,abortion is a consequence....but it's most likely just as painful as giving birth.......which you can be knocked out during both......so you might as well save a life and give the child up for adoption.......

As far as feelings of a pregnancy, they are relevant....if you feel you should or shouldn't have the child it's their choice.......

[james0246]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

See, this is the problem that has been making this argument go on so damn long. Lots of people don't agree on the line that you (and many others) have drawn between human and inhuman. And nobody can be said to be "right" simply because the categorizations are fundamentally arbitrary.

I'm not part of my mom anymore, not connected to her physically, but I'm dependent on her for food and shelter. I'm probably psychologically dependent on her as well. So if I wanted to, I could make a line there, and say "my mom has the right to abort me since I'm still dependent to her." I probably wouldn't say that though, since I don't believe that's a good place to draw the line.

You can't really compare life outside the womb to life inside the womb. You may be (partially) dependent on your mother, but you are not solely dependent on her (anyone could have taken her place after you came out of the womb, and even now you (and her) can receive help from others), something that is not true when a fetus is in a womb. Added to that, the mother can now start to benefit from having a child (chores, etc), so the relationship is not entirely unequal anymore. So, the categorization of being versus becoming, or actual versus potential is in no way arbitrary. It is based on the specific rights of the individual in question, as well as the known 'science' involved with the procedure.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

How far do you want to go? Physical, Financial, Ethical, and considerations are all affecting the situation; my point is that you can't just choose one of them (physical) and make a decision based upon that.

Physiologically and Psychologically (Finacial or otherwise does not matter considering that nearly anyone can step anto those roles after birth, and before birth they do not really matter to a fetus ), the only time during the course of development of that a person is solely dependent on another person is during pregnancy in which the fetus is solely dependent on the mother (for at least 6-7 months during its creation, afterwards it could probably survive separately (which is why the abortion laws use the word "viable")).

edit: Also when they are brain dead...

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Deso

Yes, rape or being forced to have sex would be a justification(mentioned in my earlier statement)......

You've stated it. You haven't explained it. I could state the sky is pink, that wouldn't make it so.

if you never get pregnant you would never need to get an abortion.....yes ,abortion is a consequence....but it's most likely just as painful as giving birth.......which you can be knocked out during both......

It's not about pain. It's about doing what's right, for yourself and your potential child.

so you might as well save a life and give the child up for adoption.......

It's an irresponsible way to deal with what is, at that stage, a human life.

As far as feelings of a pregnancy, they are relevant....if you feel you should or shouldn't have the child it's their choice.......

You misunderstand my point, which was that your, Deso's, personal feelings were completely irrelevant to all those people tempted by abortion. "I feel it's wrong" isn't a valid argument. It may be nice for all those other guys out there who are against abortion and can't formulate a reason either to know they're not alone, but that's not something that really needs to be brought to a debate.

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Demongod: Yeah. And what if a woman does something to her unborn fetus that won't kill, but cripple it, and thus have negative consequences on what's undeniably a separate human being?

If you need an abortion, you go to a hospital.

That said, until that fetus is out of her body as a baby, I don't perceive it as its own creature.

I draw the line at the simplest point: has the fetus been given proper birth or not? If so, it's a baby, and he or she is a separate, living creature. Until then, it's part of the woman's body.

As for financial/psychological dependence, if a biological mother cannot provide that, foster parents, or the state can (if not very well).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If you need an abortion, you go to a hospital.

... so? How does that answer my question? What if, for example, she decides to trigger the birth early, so that the baby will be greatly premature, crippled, but possibly alive? Those happen naturally. No reason they can't be set off artificially.... except moral and medical.

That said, until that fetus is out of her body as a baby, I don't perceive it as its own creature.

Yes, but things you do to a fetus will undeniably impact what may become, by your own definition, its own creature. I don't mind impacting what will never truly live in the first place, that's why I don't mind abortions. You merely snuff out a potential, not actual, someone. But irresponsibly crippling someone? That can't be right, even if you do it before he's born.

I draw the line at the simplest point: has the fetus been given proper birth or not?

Yeah, it's simple. It's also arbitrary. Is it right? That's the question.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah, it's simple. It's also arbitrary. Is it right? That's the question.

How is it arbitrary?

[TinyRedLeaf]

^ Because we haven't even agreed on a universal definition for a human being, have we? Failing that, any definition that distinguishes an embryo from a "person" is arbitrary.

If it were so easy to define a "human being", this debate wouldn't be necessary.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

That said, until that fetus is out of her body as a baby, I don't perceive it as its own creature.

For pragmatic purposes, that would be the stand I'd take, with regard to legalising abortions.

But I suspect, at the same time, that most posters here are too young to appreciate what parents feel when they see their baby (still a foetus) for the first time in an ultrasound scan, or when they hear their baby's heartbeat while it's still in its mother's womb.

Sure, it's only a potential life, not yet an actual human being. But to speak of foetuses as "creatures", or to equate it to a cyst growing inside a woman does not quite adequately describe what we're dealing with either.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

^ Because we haven't even agreed on a universal definition for a human being, have we? Failing that, any definition that distinguishes an embryo from a "person" is arbitrary.

If it were so easy to define a "human being", this debate wouldn't be necessary.

Oaky, I guess I didn't fully understand what Anh_Minh was clarifying when he/she spoke of the process as being "arbitrary". I thought he/she meant the differecnce between the seperation of a being in the womb versus being outside of the womb, so I was confused by what made the process of birth "arbitrary" . I just confused myself needlessly, it seems.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

If it were so easy to define a "human being", this debate wouldn't be necessary.

Not really.... If you notice, both sides are talking with different languages. And "human being" is the language of pro-lifers. Even if the human being aspect is settles, using it requires extreme prudence since eventually we will come at the question of which rights should take the precedence.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by james0246

Oaky, I guess I didn't fully understand what Anh_Minh was clarifying when he/she spoke of the process as being "arbitrary". I thought he/she meant the differecnce between the seperation of a being in the womb versus being outside of the womb, so I was confused by what made the process of birth "arbitrary" . I just confused myself needlessly, it seems.

I did mean it as TRL wrote, but now that I think of it, even accepting that definition, when does a fetus become a baby? When the waters break? When you can see the head? When it's fully out? When the whole body's out? When the cord is cut?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I did mean it as TRL wrote, but now that I think of it, even accepting that definition, when does a fetus become a baby? When the waters break? When you can see the head? When it's fully out? When the whole body's out? When the cord is cut?

When the cord is cut. From just a scientific point of view, this would be the moment that the baby stops drawing strength/sustenance directly/only from the mother, and can be feed from other sources (other women's breast milk or formula, etc). It is still dependent upon others, but it stops being simply dependent upon a sole individual.

[Anh_Minh]

So what if you don't cut the cord and feed it by IV? (For Mad Science or something...)

Actually, how long could you do that? Long enough for the thingy to cry? To grow up to be a freakshow?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So what if you don't cut the cord and feed it by IV? (For Mad Science or something...)

Actually, how long could you do that? Long enough for the thingy to cry? To grow up to be a freakshow?

I doubt the baby (and possibly the mother) could live long if they were to stay connected via the umbilical cord. Best case scenraio, the woman, for whatever reason, does not die from having a cord connected her her body hanging outside of herself, so, the baby will continue growing, and eventually the cord will be unable to supply it with the necessary nutrients, resulting in the baby's death.

...this is just a guess. I have no real background in the biological sciences (as I am sure my above statements just proved ).

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by james0246

I doubt the baby (and possibly the mother) could live long if they were to stay connected via the umbilical cord. Best case scenraio, the woman, for whatever reason, does not die from having a cord connected her her body hanging outside of herself, so, the baby will continue growing, and eventually the cord will be unable to supply it with the necessary nutrients, resulting in the baby's death.

...this is just a guess. I have no real background in the biological sciences (as I am sure my above statements just proved ).

The cord can continue providing the baby with blood for around 5-20 minutes, something along those lines. Some cultures don't even cut the cord, but instead keep the placenta wrapped next to the baby until it falls off naturally, which usually happens in about 2-3 days. It's called a "Lotus Birth".

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

As for financial/psychological dependence, if a biological mother cannot provide that, foster parents, or the state can (if not very well).

This is also a debatable point. While it is very generous and kind (some might say "human") for foster parents and the modern state to take care of someone else's child, they do not have a natural obligation to do so.

I, for one, am a firm believer in the idea that parents have full responsibility for their children and deserve society's scorn if they fail to fulfil that responsibility (why have sex/give birth in the first place if you are not prepared for the consequences)? I am not saying that the state should leave children to suffer under the inadequate care of their biological parents, but parents who fail in their responsibilities should not go unpunished.

I do support abortion as a "way out". It is far preferable to abandoning babies. However, my support for abortion is counterbalanced by a strong belief that people ought to take responsibility for their actions. With rights come responsibilities.

The western world is full of talk about "rights"... the woman's right to choose, the baby's right to life. However, rights are not absolute when they come into conflict with one another. Some might argue that abortion presents no such conflict since a foetus has no right to life but not everyone agrees with this assertion. Hence, a compromise is really the only way out. There is no way to satisfy everyone.

The "woman's right to choose" must also be balanced against her judgement, foresight and responsibility. It would be absolutely reasonable for the law to favour women who are involuntarily pregnant. Women who are voluntarily pregnant made a conscious choice to have sex; they should be allowed abortions for the reason I mentioned above (a way out if they won't be able to support their child), but I wouldn't be opposed a few limits (on time, etc.) which would make people think twice about what they're doing.

[Demongod86]

Yukino, there's something you forget:

Sex is very much a part of our culture. Not for the purpose of procreation, but for the purpose of recreation more often than not. So the vast majority of the time (in fact all but two or three times), the woman does NOT want the baby. And considering it's healthy to have sex every night or every other night with your loved one, I think we both see the point I'm making here.

[greatpower2]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I did mean it as TRL wrote, but now that I think of it, even accepting that definition, when does a fetus become a baby? When the waters break? When you can see the head? When it's fully out? When the whole body's out? When the cord is cut?

I honestly don't see the difference, the mother is so hopped on amphetimeans (sorry I know I misspelled it) that there is no way she would suddenly say kill it. But the way people are talking here I would say when the baby could survive without the umbillical cord.