OneofaKind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 66
kokotai said:
Part of the reason why I believe abortion is not a simple issue, is because it's about a growing life within a woman's body as opposed to just her body.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
How do you feel about abortion?
- Thread starter Brandon
- Start date
Part of the reason why I believe abortion is not a simple issue, is because it's about a growing life within a woman's body as opposed to just her body.
Werbung:
thank you.Martyr said:
if a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry that child to term and then give birth? doesn't that sort of daily reminder of a rape denote torture? and after the child is born, then what? put it up for adoption where it will possibly find it's mother later in life forcing her to face the demons of her rape, an event she will undoubtable try and forget.
if a woman is pregnant with a child of incest, what then? carry the child to term, same as above? and what happens after the child is born and runs the risk of severe birth defects because of the incestual relationship of it's parents... will that child have a fulfilling life?
there is absolutely no reason why a few of the religious right should have ANY say in what a woman does to her own body...
Word2Action
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 79
However technically true that may be I think its just horrible to consider referring to a human life as a parasite. We were all embreyo's at one time or another.
swallowed_facade
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3
the point of the matter is this - when do you consider a life to be a life?
legally a life isnt a life until it has taken a breath. my opinion is it isnt a life until it has a heart beat....this is why you are only legally able to have an abortion in the first trimester. a sperm going into an egg isnt a life, it is a chemical reaction.
legally a life isnt a life until it has taken a breath. my opinion is it isnt a life until it has a heart beat....this is why you are only legally able to have an abortion in the first trimester. a sperm going into an egg isnt a life, it is a chemical reaction.
technoflutemom
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 4
Personally, I would never beat my own infant to death, but I would never think of inflicting my morals and beliefs on someone else. I would prefer that the mother give her children up for adoption to drowning them/driving them into a lake/etc., but I realize in some cultures and situations that is not an option. Although she would have to live with the weight of her decisions, how can we, as a society, inflict our ethics on anyone?
Motherhood is a sacrifice. Upon having the baby, some women realize they are unsuited to the task and just not going to be good mothers. How can we force them to give up the next 18 years of their lives?
If a fertilized egg is valueless before it passes through the birth canal, it is no more of a human ten seconds later. Ten years ago the debate was whether or not abortions were moral when the baby was just a blastula of undifferentiated cells. "It doesn't even look like a baby" was the phrase I heard all through high school.
Now the debate is partial-birth abortions. The bar keeps rising for what we accept. Where will it be in ten years?
Motherhood is a sacrifice. Upon having the baby, some women realize they are unsuited to the task and just not going to be good mothers. How can we force them to give up the next 18 years of their lives?
If a fertilized egg is valueless before it passes through the birth canal, it is no more of a human ten seconds later. Ten years ago the debate was whether or not abortions were moral when the baby was just a blastula of undifferentiated cells. "It doesn't even look like a baby" was the phrase I heard all through high school.
Now the debate is partial-birth abortions. The bar keeps rising for what we accept. Where will it be in ten years?
The difficulty here (I dunno if I posted this already) is that life and development of such exists almost purely on a spectrum, or variety thereof.
The underlying principles in contention are varying degrees of the belief that it is wrong to kill. Some say it is wrong to kill a potential human life at any stage (Bush), others say it is wrong to kill unecessarily...and so forth. Presuming that we are talking about making the conscious lifestyle decision to abort a child that was the product of either a regretted decision, some accident or moment of irresponsibility, then obviously the discussion is about whether or when it becomes a case of "premeditated murder".
I might suggest that in terms of medical guidelines, since we have ascertained that we judge moral consideration on the basis of moral agency, and since such is defined by conscious, executive function, that we might concentrate on looking at the neural development. Obviously that's not particularly helpful as after the central nervous system becomes differentiated (but not yet functional) at 3 weeks, it undergoes a constant process of development by which the various sensory modalities form. By a month, in fact, all of the basic organ systems are there, and by 3 months they start becoming interconnected. However, we know that sensory input (esp. light and sound) is not necessarily appreciated until at least the second trimester. However again, even having said that, relatively complete visual acuity isn't acheived until a month post-natally and muscular control...you get the idea. Any arbitrary set point is going to be just that- arbitrary, which is a pain in terms of jurisprudence.
(moving along to the original question)Of course, I have no ability and no right of contributing to defining some kind of guideline for what is acceptable and what isn't...since as a hopeful doctor-in-training my role is simply to ensure that rights are enacted properly, and to deal with a patient's concerns specifically, regardless of any moral principle I might hold. This of course seems to be...divorced from moral consideration...which is the idea, but is not always possible.
The underlying principles in contention are varying degrees of the belief that it is wrong to kill. Some say it is wrong to kill a potential human life at any stage (Bush), others say it is wrong to kill unecessarily...and so forth. Presuming that we are talking about making the conscious lifestyle decision to abort a child that was the product of either a regretted decision, some accident or moment of irresponsibility, then obviously the discussion is about whether or when it becomes a case of "premeditated murder".
I might suggest that in terms of medical guidelines, since we have ascertained that we judge moral consideration on the basis of moral agency, and since such is defined by conscious, executive function, that we might concentrate on looking at the neural development. Obviously that's not particularly helpful as after the central nervous system becomes differentiated (but not yet functional) at 3 weeks, it undergoes a constant process of development by which the various sensory modalities form. By a month, in fact, all of the basic organ systems are there, and by 3 months they start becoming interconnected. However, we know that sensory input (esp. light and sound) is not necessarily appreciated until at least the second trimester. However again, even having said that, relatively complete visual acuity isn't acheived until a month post-natally and muscular control...you get the idea. Any arbitrary set point is going to be just that- arbitrary, which is a pain in terms of jurisprudence.
(moving along to the original question)Of course, I have no ability and no right of contributing to defining some kind of guideline for what is acceptable and what isn't...since as a hopeful doctor-in-training my role is simply to ensure that rights are enacted properly, and to deal with a patient's concerns specifically, regardless of any moral principle I might hold. This of course seems to be...divorced from moral consideration...which is the idea, but is not always possible.
I have a hard time coming to some conclusion about whether abortion is morally OK or not... while its the woman's body (and thus her choice) its also the child's body (who i think it can be presumed has a will to live at some point), and the mans 18 year responsibility.
What I can say with more conviction is that if the woman completely owns the decision to abort or not abort a child, the woman should be completely responsible for the ramifications of that decision.
For example: If a baby is concieved, and the man then says "i don't want this baby" within the window to legitimately abort the child, the woman should have to use that information in making her decision to keep or abort the child. That should eliminate any obligation on the man's part to pay child support. (Point being if the woman gets unlimited rights to end a pregnancy to avoid her obligations to the baby, the man should have an opportunity to make the same escape.)
Assuming the conception is the result of a consensual act, I think its contradictory in today's legal system that the woman has 100% control of the decision to abort or not abort a child, but the man has 100% of the responsibility in terms of child support after the birth occurs.
What I can say with more conviction is that if the woman completely owns the decision to abort or not abort a child, the woman should be completely responsible for the ramifications of that decision.
For example: If a baby is concieved, and the man then says "i don't want this baby" within the window to legitimately abort the child, the woman should have to use that information in making her decision to keep or abort the child. That should eliminate any obligation on the man's part to pay child support. (Point being if the woman gets unlimited rights to end a pregnancy to avoid her obligations to the baby, the man should have an opportunity to make the same escape.)
Assuming the conception is the result of a consensual act, I think its contradictory in today's legal system that the woman has 100% control of the decision to abort or not abort a child, but the man has 100% of the responsibility in terms of child support after the birth occurs.
technoflutemom
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 4
I might suggest that in terms of medical guidelines, since we have ascertained that we judge moral consideration on the basis of moral agency, and since such is defined by conscious, executive function, that we might concentrate on looking at the neural development. Obviously that's not particularly helpful as after the central nervous system becomes differentiated (but not yet functional) at 3 weeks, it undergoes a constant process of development by which the various sensory modalities form. By a month, in fact, all of the basic organ systems are there, and by 3 months they start becoming interconnected.
So my father, operating without major chunks of his digestive and excretory systems, isn't alive?
However, we know that sensory input (esp. light and sound) is not necessarily appreciated until at least the second trimester. However again, even having said that, relatively complete visual acuity isn't acheived until a month post-natally and muscular control...you get the idea.
I get the idea. The blind and deaf are less than human.
The sticking point, to me, is do we really, truly want to push the envelope as far as possible. Do we as a society really want to say "it can conceivably not be murder at this point"? And draw the line there or do we want to draw the line further back, just in case we're wrong about what precise moment life occurs.
I'm sure you also realize that developmental biology is not an absolute. Every individual develops at their own pace. And the time progression is not a definite "mileston A happens at time B" situation.
And of course, silly as it sounds, doctors make mistakes when calculating gestational age.
I don't see why it is important to ride the line as closely as possible when setting the cutoff for when an abortion is not horrific. The only reason I can see is a coordinated effort to get people to accept more and more. "If we can get them to accept aborting a blastula, a baby that can't survive outside the mother isn't so bad. Once we get that, partial birth isn't so bad. Once we get that..."
Martyr:
You've either never been pregnant or you are just trying to be devisive. A much closer term than "parasitism" would be "sybiosis" as the mother does reap many benefits from pregnancy, including longterm increased resistance to many diseases and short term "happy hormones".
If it's murder after the baby is out of the mother, it's murder the split second before.
The only absolute, the only sure thing that we can say "it is before, it isn't after" in all cases is conception. Why are people terrified of this?
So my father, operating without major chunks of his digestive and excretory systems, isn't alive?
However, we know that sensory input (esp. light and sound) is not necessarily appreciated until at least the second trimester. However again, even having said that, relatively complete visual acuity isn't acheived until a month post-natally and muscular control...you get the idea.
I get the idea. The blind and deaf are less than human.
The sticking point, to me, is do we really, truly want to push the envelope as far as possible. Do we as a society really want to say "it can conceivably not be murder at this point"? And draw the line there or do we want to draw the line further back, just in case we're wrong about what precise moment life occurs.
I'm sure you also realize that developmental biology is not an absolute. Every individual develops at their own pace. And the time progression is not a definite "mileston A happens at time B" situation.
And of course, silly as it sounds, doctors make mistakes when calculating gestational age.
I don't see why it is important to ride the line as closely as possible when setting the cutoff for when an abortion is not horrific. The only reason I can see is a coordinated effort to get people to accept more and more. "If we can get them to accept aborting a blastula, a baby that can't survive outside the mother isn't so bad. Once we get that, partial birth isn't so bad. Once we get that..."
Martyr:
You've either never been pregnant or you are just trying to be devisive. A much closer term than "parasitism" would be "sybiosis" as the mother does reap many benefits from pregnancy, including longterm increased resistance to many diseases and short term "happy hormones".
If it's murder after the baby is out of the mother, it's murder the split second before.
The only absolute, the only sure thing that we can say "it is before, it isn't after" in all cases is conception. Why are people terrified of this?
Assuming the conception is the result of a consensual act, I think its contractory in today's legal system that the woman has 100% control of the decision to abort or not abort a child, but the man has 100% of the responsibility in terms of child support after the birth occurs.
Methinks there's a simple typo here, but for the sake of clarification, do you mean contradictory? Coz that makes sense, if your facts are correct.
(who i think it can be presumed has a will to live at some point),
Okay, looking at it from this perspective, we can make the distinction between the biological imperative will to live and the conscious valuation of life, which develops to varying capacity in a far more complex manner.
If a baby is concieved, and the man then says "i don't want this baby" within the window to legitimately abort the child, the woman should have to use that information in making her decision to keep or abort the child.
Understandable that you are coming from the perspective of making it fairer for the male partner...but I would like to see a reflection on the practical (statistical?) realities here, especially regarding the allocation of responsibility to the actual conception itself, which most people seem to think is relevant. How this may affect your thesis is that the process of abortion is certainly not a traumaless one both physically and mentally, and carries not-insignificant risks for the female.
However, on the basis of principle, I would agree with your point.
Methinks there's a simple typo here, but for the sake of clarification, do you mean contradictory? Coz that makes sense, if your facts are correct.
(who i think it can be presumed has a will to live at some point),
Okay, looking at it from this perspective, we can make the distinction between the biological imperative will to live and the conscious valuation of life, which develops to varying capacity in a far more complex manner.
If a baby is concieved, and the man then says "i don't want this baby" within the window to legitimately abort the child, the woman should have to use that information in making her decision to keep or abort the child.
Understandable that you are coming from the perspective of making it fairer for the male partner...but I would like to see a reflection on the practical (statistical?) realities here, especially regarding the allocation of responsibility to the actual conception itself, which most people seem to think is relevant. How this may affect your thesis is that the process of abortion is certainly not a traumaless one both physically and mentally, and carries not-insignificant risks for the female.
However, on the basis of principle, I would agree with your point.
Werbung:
[FONT="]dong, I did mean contradictory. I fixed it. I'll do a better job spell checking my posts in the future.
I guess my assumption was that if the sex was consensual, then the responsibility for the conception is 50/50. There are definitely biological realities for the female after conception, but the societal realities for the man are just as real when you look past the 9 month term. I think that justifies the man having his say in the matter.
The facts that an abortion is uncomfortable to a woman, and pregnancy can be inconvenient are the reasons women get the final say in the decision. All I would ask is that if they make the decision, they own up to the responsibility completely. In my experience it’s never good to separate decision making authority from responsibility.[/FONT]
I guess my assumption was that if the sex was consensual, then the responsibility for the conception is 50/50. There are definitely biological realities for the female after conception, but the societal realities for the man are just as real when you look past the 9 month term. I think that justifies the man having his say in the matter.
The facts that an abortion is uncomfortable to a woman, and pregnancy can be inconvenient are the reasons women get the final say in the decision. All I would ask is that if they make the decision, they own up to the responsibility completely. In my experience it’s never good to separate decision making authority from responsibility.[/FONT]
