Abortion

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

once again, you are using malleable definitions and stating them as universal "fact". And using strong-arm argumentative tactics to attempt to make me appear ignorant. You're failing.

Good night, sir.

Malleable definitions???....

Homicide

NOLO - Definition of Homicide

Legal Dictionary - Definition of Homicide

US Legal - Legal Definition of Homicide

Feticide

Online Medical Dictionary - Definition of Feticide

Answers - Definition of Feticide

List of US laws regarding Feticide

Abortion

Medicalnet - definition of Abortion

Merriam Webster - Abortion

Abortion Law

Multiple sources on the Defiition of Abortion

Fetus

Medicalnet - Definition of Fetus

Free Dictionary - Definition of Fetus

Merriam Webster - Definition of Fetus

I will also go as far as to quote the Merriam Webster, in it's definition of a Fetus

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

as well as the Free Dictionary Website

In a fetus, all major body organs are present.

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal

I'm not seeing where the definitions are very malleable.....the only thing that seems to fail here is your lack of any information to back your arguements.

Simple fact of the matter is....I've laid very little other than definitions by neutral sources at everyone's feet for the past two pages, and have tried to keep my opinions and personal feelings of the subject nihl when it comes to this particular part of the public forum. EVERYTHING above is free of biased views, having to be gone over by professors and councils before being entered into their accredited sources.

My only opinion, not based on the definitions above, is that I think that abortion should go back to being used as an emergancy Medical procedure, instead of it's "average day" use in our society as a way to shy away from responibility.

[DarkChylde]

Oh c'mon. Who really cares if abortion is murder or not murder. The way I see it, sometimes murder has a good cause. Besides, this world is populated with too much human-beings anyway.

[Hellion]

I'm surprised no one started any "dead baby jokes" wont be me.Other than that everyone has their own opinion on this subject,I have my own but wont bother wasting my time and energy posting it,carry on.

[sass_in_the_pants]

If its before the first trimester, it isnt developed enough to think or ever breathe in the first place. Several states use the ability (or likelihood of ability) to breathe as a marking point for whether terminating a pregnancy (by violence or otherwise) can be considered murder. It's not a fully developed human being until it has most of the right parts, and the ability to use them in *some* capacity. You cant be forcing a belief on something that has never had the ability to think, feel, etc. On the other hand, you, a seperate entity, telling someone (another seperate entity) who feels they cannot deal with having a child (who is, for at least the first few weeks of its existance a dependant part of its mother's body) what they can and cannot do with something that for all intents and purposes is a part of their own body is a bit unsettling.

Two things-- at some point in time, you had higher brain function, and the ability to choose for yourself whether you wanted life support. You (on life support) are a damaged human being. A fetus is a potential human being, it hasnt had the ability to grow to become one yet. Secondly, if you havent made out an advance directive, yes, your family has the right to choose whether you are terminated or not, so essentially, depending on your condition, in many ways you are the same.

I regard the unborn as a seperate entity. I can see you don't and thank you, honestly, thank you for telling me why. Most people don't. What it comes down to then, for me, is this - the idea that they have to have 'most' of the right parts, and be able to use them in 'some' capacity...which parts are right? how capable? What if the baby will have certain health problems after he or she is born, making their capabilities that much lower than another person?

Abortions are performed in second and third trimester, after the baby is able to breathe on its own. Are those considered murder? And what about premies who are born unable to breathe on their own? Are those not fully human?

I recognize that a baby grows IN a woman, but the baby is still a seperate entity - with different blood type, and its own heartbeat (at 28 days) and its own, well, everything.

And all of these questions I'm asking by the way, I'm asking what YOU think. I know what the states think, but I want to know YOUR opinion.

As to the second point, I know what my family could do under the law, but what SHOULD they do? If I am attached to life support, but they KNOW that I will be attached to it for a few more months, and then I will be off of it and living independently, but it is still in many, many way difficult for them to keep me on the life support, SHOULD they still keep me on it? Legally, I know they wouldn't have to (and of course, in reality, we don't know what the outcome of being on life support would mean, but I'm all about hypotheticals today), but what SHOULD they do? What would you want them to do if it were you?

Is an unborn baby a human? that is the question is it not? When does something qualify as human? I can't make that statement, can you?

Yes, that is the question, and of course I can answer it. So can you. You answer it in practical, if not specific terms, every day. Conception is when life begins. That's my answer. What is yours?

We can agree to disagree on this.... but just because "the law" has decided something, does not mean I agree with it... but while I live here, I will obey it.

Don't I know how that one feels...

That comes down to the whole "Choice" By your own statements, is paradise in heavan worse then life here? and if not... what is the delay? As far as what "most women think" I have enough trouble figuring that out anyway, let alone on an issue like this.

Lucky for you, you really only have to figure out what Rayne thinks. I don't want to get into theology here, it's just not the right place for it, so I won't get into why it might be necessary to live here on earth before going to heaven. But I will say, the end never justifies the means. So, while the child may be going to heaven, that in no way makes the method by which the child got there to be acceptable.

Did you not say that abortion = murder = the ultimate abuse? So again by your own definition.... anyone thinking about an abortion has already made the leap to causing their baby harm.

Thinking about an abortion is not anything like having one. Considering abusing a child is not child abuse.

In answer to this... yes... before I existed I have no memories of disliking it. I cannot comment on as to whether or not (opens can of worms) anything existed before I was born in all honesty... that is philosophy though. The point being I have no idea if not existing before or after this thing we call life is good or bad.... as I have no memory of before I was alive, and not way of telling (just the likelyhood I see around me) of what it will be like after I am dead.

My question was, did you exist before you were born? Not what your memories are of it...I can't remember anything before I was like four, but I'm pretty sure I still existed. And if you aren't sure if you existed before you were born, you should ask your mother what was kicking her at 3 in the morning when she was pregnant with you

[freydis]

I regard the unborn as a seperate entity. I can see you don't and thank you, honestly, thank you for telling me why. Most people don't. What it comes down to then, for me, is this - the idea that they have to have 'most' of the right parts, and be able to use them in 'some' capacity...which parts are right? how capable?

The ones that would enable them to survive outside the womb. If they have a fair chance of survival, I think it's fair to say you're looking at something that has a fair chance of being a little person.

What if the baby will have certain health problems after he or she is born, making their capabilities that much lower than another person?

To me, that's something else entirely. If they have the ability to survive birth (or c-section or whatever), theyre still a little person. But what would I do if I found out that my fetus had teays-sacs (sp?) or cystic fibrosis? I would abort, for the sake of the child. To know, for absolute certainty, that the child was going to die an agonising, painful death likely not long after they were born I would spare any living thing from having to go through that.

Abortions are performed in second and third trimester, after the baby is able to breathe on its own.

I don't think that's right, unless it's better for the child, in the case I'd stated above. If you don't want to have a kid, make the decision immediately, before it's actually a kid. Late-term abortions I think are only ok if it's medically compassionate to end the pregnancy rather than put a baby through something most adults couldnt even handle. At that point though, I think it has more in common with compassionate homicide than murder. You're sparing them suffering.

Are those considered murder? And what about premies who are born unable to breathe on their own? Are those not fully human?

Premies are developed enough to survive, though. Their little lungs may be not strong enough to breathe without assistance for awhile, but they have the brain function and the development to survive.

As to the second point, I know what my family could do under the law, but what SHOULD they do?

And my point is, I don't (and shouldnt) have the right to tell them what they should do. I think that's wrong. That's the kind of decision they should make based on what THEY think is right. I don't think the law should have a right to interfere.

If I am attached to life support, but they KNOW that I will be attached to it for a few more months, and then I will be off of it and living independently, but it is still in many, many way difficult for them to keep me on the life support, SHOULD they still keep me on it?

Were it me? If there were a hope of coming off it, I'm all for leaving someone hooked up. If that's all theyre going to have, ever, if they're brain-dead? It's more humane to unplug. If I were brain dead, I'd see no point in having family draw things out.

[sass_in_the_pants]

Here's a question not really looked at yet and directed at the pro-lifers on here. What if the pregnancy could potentially endanger the mother?? Is it worth endangering a person who is already carrying on their life, contributing to society, etc, for the life of a child not yet born? I always feel this thrill of fear whenever it is discussed that abortion or birth control should be limited, because if I get pregnant - it could very well be a death sentence. At best it would mean around 6 months flat on my back and a very dangerous labor. So, if the choice came down to potentially kill the mother, or kill the fetus, do you still stand by the "abortion is bad mmm'kay? rigamarole?

There are cases where a baby cannot be carried. Gaf brought up the ectopic pregnancy. In those cases, there's no sense in saying that you cannot terminate the pregnancy, because to proceed with the pregnancy would be death for both mother and child.

There are other cases, too, where risks have to be weighed. I would never expect a person to endanger their life for another. That being said, I think many, many women would choose to carry their baby to term and risk their own lives in doing so if that were their situation. You hear parents saying all the time that they would do anything for their child, that they would even give their lives for their child, and frankly, I believe they would. I know if that were my situation I would not terminate the pregnancy. I'd take my chances. But that's me.

[sass_in_the_pants]

Obviously you live with blinders on.....

Obviously.

[sass_in_the_pants]

Munin - I've said it once and I'll say it again - people on this board type FAST!!!

Holy smokes!

I'll have to answer your points later...I think the girlies are awake...

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

And my point is, I don't (and shouldnt) have the right to tell them what they should do. I think that's wrong. That's the kind of decision they should make based on what THEY think is right. I don't think the law should have a right to interfere.

well now..wait...thats kind of a mute claim, isn't it? I mean...the law tells EVERYONE what you can or cannot do...and BY LAW, they have the RIGHT to interfere on the betterment of the society as a whole....without these laws, we have anarchy...not chaos....anarchy.

From what your saying, you don't, and shouldn't, have a right to tell ANYONE what to, or not to, do.

So you can't tell someone not to murder another human being

you can't tell someone not to rob a bank

if you were an employer, you can't tell your employee's what to do

I'm just going off your logic, according to what you have posted.

If it is DETREMENTAL to another life...then, as another Human Being, you do have a RIGHT....thats why we have MORALS, despite them being personal or as a society.

[Rev.Reverence]

well now..wait...thats kind of a mute claim, isn't it? I mean...the law tells EVERYONE what you can or cannot do...and BY LAW, they have the RIGHT to interfere on the betterment of the society as a whole....without these laws, we have anarchy...not chaos....anarchy.

Because even a world with "Law&Order" is still Chaotic.

[Fin]

I dont think a connection to Beethoven was implied.

Nor was one inferred.

Simply a joke regarding how the thread has gone from abortion rights (or lack thereof) to Beethoven & even Hitler. Holy smokes.

[Rev.Reverence]

Nor was one inferred.

Simply a joke regarding how the thread has gone from abortion rights (or lack thereof) to Beethoven & even Hitler. Holy smokes.

Cigarettes...are in a different thread..._{{"Holy smokes"}}

[freydis]

well now..wait...thats kind of a mute claim, isn't it? I mean...the law tells EVERYONE what you can or cannot do...and BY LAW, they have the RIGHT to interfere on the betterment of the society as a whole....without these laws, we have anarchy...not chaos....anarchy.

From what your saying, you don't, and shouldn't, have a right to tell ANYONE what to, or not to, do.

So you can't tell someone not to murder another human being

you can't tell someone not to rob a bank

if you were an employer, you can't tell your employee's what to do

I'm just going off your logic, according to what you have posted.

If it is DETREMENTAL to another life...then, as another Human Being, you do have a RIGHT....thats why we have MORALS, despite them being personal or as a society.

You're ignoring the question I was responding to.

She asked: "If I were on life support, I know my family by law has the right to pull the plug or not pull the plug, but what do YOU think they should do?" ....and my response that me making that kind of decision for them isn't right. Pulling things out of context doesn't enhance your argument.

[Michiko_Dreads]

*looks around*

I may get some hate for this.....

I am Pro-choice/Pro-abortion.....

The world is populated.....If people cannot keep there legs closed, or guys can't pull out {yes, even when she is on the pill}

AND they can not care for a child {financially/emotionally}{especially emotionally}, then Abort.....

Perhaps we would not have as many useless people is this world if people would stop breeding like animals, and think before they fuck.....Shit if that happened we would not even need abortion.....

**I know.....I sound like a total ass hole, but hey.....It is just Me opinion.....& I think I am right.....

Agrees

I believe an abortion is the choice of the person carrying the baby and thats all nobody else (unless ur married) then its two people who choose.

Abortion is a choice and nobody should be forced to bring unwanted life into this world.

Despite everyones opinions it will always be the WOMANS CHOICE

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

Agrees

I believe an abortion is the choice of the person carrying the baby and thats all nobody else (unless ur married) then its two people who choose.

Abortion is a choice and nobody should be forced to bring unwanted life into this world.

Despite everyones opinions it will always be the WOMANS CHOICE

It shouldn't legally be the woman's choice NOW....it should have stayed an emergancy medical procedure....and according to some of the bills I've been seeing handed out by a few different states...it looks like it's going to be that AGAIN in like 10-15 years.

[Shade Everdark]

It shouldn't legally be the woman's choice NOW....it should have stayed an emergancy medical procedure....and according to some of the bills I've been seeing handed out by a few different states...it looks like it's going to be that AGAIN in like 10-15 years.

Frankly, I hope people like you, and the people trying to pass those bills, are willing to deal with all the coat hangers.

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

Frankly, I hope people like you, and the people trying to pass those bills, are willing to deal with all the coat hangers.

why?...because it's a crime to MAKE it exactly what it was??

[Shade Everdark]

why?...because it's a crime to MAKE it exactly what it was??

In your opinion. I just stated mine.

I'm also curious to know how you would deal with Plan B, which is not considered an aboritfacient by established medical science, and how you would deal with Ru-486, which IS considered and abortifacient, and is, to oversimplify, a prescribed abortion pill?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Ru-486 is taking care of itself. It seems to be killing the women taking it far more than it' sopposed to.

[SomeDanGuy]

I saw this thread too late to try to read all the things previously posted, so I won't try to add things that may have already been covered. I thought I could add a little-known fact that complicates the position of people arguing for zygotes to have 'souls' or for abortion being 'unnatural':

50-80% of fertilized embryos are spontaneously aborted. Thus the 'natural' course for a zygote is to be aborted and never make it to term.

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

I saw this thread too late to try to read all the things previously posted, so I won't try to add things that may have already been covered. I thought I could add a little-known fact that complicates the position of people arguing for zygotes to have 'souls' or for abortion being 'unnatural':

50-80% of fertilized embryos are spontaneously aborted. Thus the 'natural' course for a zygote is to be aborted and never make it to term.

It's the natural course for trees to fall over and animals to die...but when man gets involved, it becomes extinction and mass deforestation....so, so much for "helping" the natural course....and btw...spontaneous abortion is called a miscarriage...thats seperate foom a medical abortion like we are talking.

[Az_]

Newbie(here, not to the subject) jumping into one of the most contentious issues imaginable.

I am strongly prochoice. So much so that I have volunteered to help escort women to a clinic past the waiting protesters. I haven't done so in a while due to my neuropathy (my feet hurt like crazy all the time). But I still promote, defend and argue for choice. Let me explain my thinking.

I believe in extending rights to any viable human being. Now the term human being here means something pretty specific. Lets examine some of the criteria of what it is we extend our empathy, sympathy, and ultimately humanity to.

If we look at most religions it seems there is a common trend. Each seeks to offer some means of protecting or assuring the continuity of what some call the soul. Let us say this is synonymous with the notion of identity from a nonreligious viewpoint.

It is the identity of a person that is primary to what we consider to be a human being. Its that word being that makes this point. Human unqualified could simply mean a mindless body hooked up to a machine. Human DNA. Human cells Human etc. The qualifier being though implies an entity. A sentient being.

If you were offered the option of having your skin cells preserved for eternity in a petri dish or your identity preserved eternally in some other conveyance which would you opt for? Its not a question of life. Life is wonderful. But it is not the primary thing that we seek to preserve. People opt for the preservation of identity over life.

So the question becomes to a person looking for science to guide them rather than religion (not necessarily mutually exclusive) is when does a fetus begin to be able to support an identity or a mind?

We unfortunately have enough examples of tragedies of failed pregnancies and other individuals who had their brains damaged (as well as other forms of discovery) that we know what portions of the brain are necessary to give rise to a mind. And the critical structure is the Cerebrum. Without a Cerebrum you can have all sorts of brain activity but it is not the activity of a mind in action. There is no self realization. There is no identity.

The Cerebrum as it happens does not form until some time during the third trimester. Generally once the Cerebrum has formed the fetus is considered to be viable. And once the fetus is viable you won't find any Doctor that would be willing to abort the fetus unless it was a matter of life or death for the mother. So the Cerebrum seems to be a good measure for when a cut off point should be considered in order to provide a moral sense of what is going on.

It is important to note that just because a brain has a Cerebrum does not mean a mind has arisen within it. It takes experience and time before a mind can arise. But the Cerebrum seems to be the minimal physical requirement. And we are not yet able to pinpoint the exact moment that the mind arises. So the Cerebrum continues to function as a good measuring stick for moral consideration on the matter of abortion.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Um... Check your science. The Cerebrum starts to form around the 7th to 8th week. Thats first trimester. Infact, most brain development is done by the end of the First Trimester. Fetal EEG reading have been obtained at 12 weeks.

[Az_]

Um... Check your science. The Cerebrum starts to form around the 7th to 8th week. Thats first trimester. Infact, most brain development is done by the end of the First Trimester. Fetal EEG reading have been obtained at 12 weeks.

Science checked and rechecked. And it checks out. Here is a detailed study on the development of the fetal brain. Linkie

Take note of the section regarding the 10 stages of brain development. In this particular document the author refers to the cerebrum as the forebrain (same thing). It does not fully develop or start functioning until near term.

Excerpt

---------------------

10. Functional development of the medulla, followed by the pons, then the midbrain, the lastly, the forebrain which does not begin to functionally mature until near term.

---------------------

I suspect the problem here is that the parts of the brain may be in process of being developed. But they do not approach functionality until a later date. The Cerebrum(forebrain) is the last component of the brain to become functional. And actually in some babies (premies) it is not even functioning at all. It is present but not essentially switched on. The baby is presenting autonomic reactions rather than emotionally individual driven actions. Without the cerebrum working there is no person present.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Your link does not work.

Just explain this to me... if the cognitive function does not exist until the 3rd trimester... James Elgin Gill. He was born after 21 weeks and 5 days gestation. Thats 2nd trimester. He turned out fine.

But more to the point... It's too late to change your position. You stated...

So the question becomes to a person looking for science to guide them rather than religion (not necessarily mutually exclusive) is when does a fetus begin to be able to support an identity or a mind?.

So, the brain has been shown to be able to support an identity in the second trimester... Not the 3rd.