MarcoPolo

I agree!!! No rant necessary!!

I can't answer that for you. Like you said, we're different people, we have different thoughts and beliefs, and well, you're, well, a woman and I'm a man!!! I don't mean to imply that MY judgement is the right one or the wrong one. I'm just discussing if it's possible to come to some agreement on a line somewhere in the middle.

If I've given you the idea that my judgement is 'wiser than' yours, then I've done something terribly wrong. I never intended to make that distinction.

I still believe there is a place in between that we should all be able to agree on, I just don't know what it is.

I agree!!! That's what I was trying to set with showing the development of a fetus.

I understood you before, but your character shines through when you humble yourself like that. (That's a compliment if you can't tell... )

MarcoPolo

But we're talking about an actual heart pumping blood, not blood cells themselves.

These pictures are what I was talking about.




When are they complete enough?

Puck

MarcoPolo wrote:
Some babies are born premature with something not fully formed. What does that say about these babies?

Beats me, what does it say? It really doesn't say anything about them other than bad shit happens sometimes.

MarcoPolo wrote:
Yes you are. As a matter of fact, you can call yourself an artist before you even start a painting. Or are you saying that you're only an artist once the painting is complete? If you're in the middle of a piece of art, you're not an artist?

But, I am not an artist. I paint like a 1st grader, which is fine for a first grader, but just because I decided to start a picture, does not make me an artist. Starting something doesn't make it so, starting is only that, starting.

MarcoPolo Wrote:
I think we agree more than you know.
I'm basically here just to discuss and learn (not necessarily in that order!) I'm not here to try and prove my agenda or anything. If I've given off that notion, then I apologize.
I appreciate the conversation!

And I appreciate the role you are taking in this debate. Good exercise for the mind for us all. The non-religous take is different for me, I've sometimes had to stop myself from throwing in religous references I would use if you had been using the religous take on abortion. The nice thing for me, is that I find that indeed my reasons are not based on resistance to religion.

Oh, and I may well take what I wrote earlier off. It really was/is difficult to reveal someting so personal to strangers (especially on the web), can you imagine how awful it would be in a clinical setting instead of sitting in my living room? Or, a judges office? Ugh. I might as well be put in a (oh damn, I forget the word, its right on the tip of my tounge, burka!) burka and be made to be ashamed of having a vagina instead of a penis.

Puck

Yuppers. For me, I have a hard time running off dogs that get dumped off around here. I'm a sucker for little living things and I couldn't live with my child 'out there' and me not able to protect s/he. I'd never sleep good again. I would have to keep the child and raise her, I would give up this half of my life, and do what I did the first half. And, I could never let her know how it was killing me inside because it would wound her too much.

The choice was easy the first time, I was pregnant and I knew myself enough that I would/could be her Mother. I deserve this half of my life for me.

Puck

Marco, I couldn't find any data on the pics at that site. What is the length of the fetus' at those ages? Are they viable in any way? Do you suppose the brain is developed enough to have thoughts?

I followed a link at that site looking for more data and found this:
<a href="http://www.lifeissues.org/radio/r1999/r99-08/lr2115.html" target="_blank">http://www.lifeissues.org/radio/r1999/r99-08/lr2115.html</a>
Scroll down to the story about the swimming 'baby'. Of course people like this will post pictures that are compelling, but a 1/3 inch fetus is *not* fully developed and consciencely swimming. Don't trust what they post without checking out the data.

Maybe we can look for a site with both pics and data where we can make opinions we can trust and not be compelled by what the site wishes us to see?

MarcoPolo

You were classifying something as being 'not human' because it's only 'starting' to develop parts. I'm just asking if you feel this only applys in the womb or is it hold true if the baby is born in say 30 weeks?

We weren't arguing whether you personally are or are not an artist. You were making the comparison of an unfinished work of art to an 'unfinished' (or not fully developed) child. Right?

MarcoPolo

I don't know the answers to those questions. I'm asking you what it looks like to you. Does it look like a child to you? I'm not asking you to be scientific here, I'm asking you to open up and tell me what you see. If you really only see a small fetus and something inside you tells you it would be ok to destroy this then fine. I'm just asking your feelings on the pictures.

Again you make a statement about something not being fully developed. In your opinion, at what stage is it developed enough to deserve the rights and protection of all humans?

Ok. I'll be happy to look over other sites if you have one to recommend. The problem is, in my experience, you're not going to find a site that isn't biased. This site uses lots of different medical journals to build it's side of the story. Do you think they're making up the growth process? We know the author is pro-life, but does that make the information false?

I always check sources, especially if it's opinion driven. All this site was doing for the most part is showing facts. That's not saying the facts are right or wrong, just that it's not all based on someone's opinion.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by MarcoPolo:
<strong>Does it look like a child to you?</strong>

You know, when I first saw that picture, I had an instinctive "aww" reaction - which, of course, is what pro-life activists aim for with pictures like that.

Then I thought :

1. This fetus could have genetic abnormalities that make it certain to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth. Do I still have the "aww" reaction?

2. This fetus could have serious mental deformities that mean it will never be more than a vegetable (sorry if that's too blunt). Do I still have the "aww" reaction?

3. This fetus is not floating alone in a great void. It is within a woman, using her body. Imagine that she is standing in a courtroom, tears running down her face as she explains to a hostile jury that she was raped and does not want to carry the product of that rape. Or imagine a society a la The Handmaid's Tale. Do I still have the "aww" reaction?

4. This fetus is threatening the life of the woman who carries it. Do I still have the "aww" reaction?

At that point, my reaction stopped being "aww" and started being a bit more realistic. The fact that a fetus might look cute for five seconds before rational thought kicks in is not, IMO, sufficient reason to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion.

<strong>I'm not asking you to be scientific here, I'm asking you to open up and tell me what you see. If you really only see a small fetus and something inside you tells you it would be ok to destroy this then fine. </strong>

No, I don't really only see a small fetus. I look beyond it to see the woman who is carrying it and the world into which it will come, including the overworked welfare agencies to which it may very well be handed. If I ever suffer an pregnancy that progresses to this point, the "something" inside me which tells me that I have to weigh my needs and the fetus's needs will be my brain, and I think it will come down on the side of my needs.

I once read a book called A Natural History of Parenting, which is a great antidote for all the Chicken Soup and Reader's Digest stories which paint motherhood in the rosiest of altruistic lights. Pregnancy and motherhood are times when two organisms are competing for resources. Sometimes, resources are plentiful and at those times, offspring survive. At other times, resources are not so plentiful, and it is at those times that mothers and young have conflicting needs. It's not pretty, but it is realistic.

Sabine Grant

Hello Marco Polo! there is one argument I wanted to add about the completeness of a human fetus... at what stage of its development does it feel physical pain? more than the protection of a human fetus or any potential rights, one has to consider the possibility of physical pain inflicted on a fetus during an abortion procedure.
Should we consider the right to not suffer undue pain?
If we do... how do we approach and balance the right to chose and measures of mercy to prevent physical suffering?
Should the absence of persona defined by the absence of constitutional identity deny the potential for physical pain in the human fetus?
If we are concerned about what may happen to a child adopted by abusive potential parents, should not we be concerned about the scientific data which determines at what stages the fetus'nervous system will register pain? or does the fact that it is not born yet justifies ignoring the potential for pain?

Queen of Swords

I'm fine with anaesthesia being applied before the abortion is performed. However, if that is not medically feasible for any reason, it will still not prevent me from obtaining an abortion if I have considered the alternatives and decided on that course of action.