tronvillain

vtran31:

Learn to use the quote command!

Well, that depends on exactly what you mean by ",me." In a way I just became "me", but in a more general sense I became "me" gradually as I grew up. The dividing line between "me" and "not-me" is thus extremely fuzzy, but I have no difficulty drawing the line on this side of the cervix.

Well, I do not consider infanticide, assault, or theft to be on par with murder, but I am opposed to them all. Is it that hard to understand?

JerryM

Elective abortion should be available up until the fetus is naturally viable, about 25 weeks of gestational age. I don't believe a fetus is a "person" in the sense of having rights which supercede those of the mother until that point. I don't mean to imply that I think abortion is virtuous. A woman's reasons for seeking an abortion may be cogent or may be self-serving. But I think excessive regulation by the state is a greater evil. Our society rightfully cherishes personal freedom, and sometimes we have to allow conduct which may well be morally questionable. For example, I think belonging to an organization such as the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nation is highly immoral, but I don't think government should make such behavior illegal. Terminating a pre-viable pregnancy may be a bad choice, and I agree it is a terrible means of birth control (if it is used as such), but I don't think it is murder--and I think trying to criminalize it would be horrendously bad public policy.

99Percent

I understand it perfectly because I know there is in fact nothing to understand. Its merely your opinion and that's that.

This is called subjectivism, BTW, for those lurking.

openeyes

For sure there shouldn't be any problem with abortion the first 12 weeks. I had a "spontaneous abortion." better known as a miscarriage, at 11 weeks gestation, and I certainly did not feel as though I had lost a child. We obviously don't print obituaries and have funerals every time a woman has a miscarriage, estimated at 1 in every 4 or 5 pregnancies. Society really doesn't have to worry about these specific genetic combinations at these early stages.

I think it should be a woman's choice up to the time of viability also, around 22-23 weeks. After that, if there are signs of gross malformation and a danger to the health of the mother, there may still be justification.

brighid

There is a general time frame in which a fetus is expected to develop the critical brain mater and central nervous system functioning that puts it closer to personhood. Unfortunately (and this has been recognized by the courts) that general time frame may not be met for any number of reasons (such a genetic abnormality) and therefore the decision regarding viability and brain development during and after this general time is left at the discretion of the woman’s personal physician.

Brighid

dshimel

NO!!! I'm of the opinion that life does not begin at any point in the reproduction process. The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. They join, and the fertalized egg is alive. 80+% of (what is it? Zygot at that point?) do not implant in time to prevent menstruation, and therfore, the living blob of cells is flushed from the body. If the egg does implant, and the woman is able to carry the life through all cycles of the development, it will become a human being.

Life does not begin during reproduction. At some point we have a life that is not a human being (egg, sperm), and at some point we have a human being. There is some point between these end points where this change occurs. I advocate using brain development and function as the deciding factor of this transition.

This is, after all, how we determine death. At some time, we are alive. At some time we are dead. We do not wait until we've degraded into dust as the point of death. We don't even wait for all cellular activity to stop. Once the brain stop functioning, even though the individual cells are very much still alive, we are dead.

What it is to be a human should be defined by brain function.

JerryM

Arguments can be made for any number of times when a fetus becomes a "person"--ranging from the moment of conception, through various points of central nervous system development, to viability, or to the moment of birth. But as a practical matter, it ultimately comes down to a legal issue--decided by court ruling or by statute. I see it exactly analagous to how we determine such things as the age of majority, or the voting age, or the legal drinking age. Some point will be codified in law as a practical necessity. It may seem arbitrary, but that's usually how the law works.

MollyMac

There is clearly a problem with question 2. "Should not be used as birth control" is superfluous - nobody believes it should be.
"In extreme cases" is highly subjective: one poster describes as "if both lives would be lost" - an extreme case indeed! So just losing, say, the mother's life would be OK??

Closer to the other end of the spectrum might be the adolescent girl for whom carrying a pregnancy to term would have a catastrophic effect on her life due to her family's reaction, the effect on her studies, her lack of financial and emotional support and any number of other factors. But many would not consider this "an extreme case" presumably because she can just have it adopted - a simple solution from those who have never known the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy and what it feels like to carry such a pregnancy to term, let alone having to live the rest of your life not knowing the child you've given birth to. The lack of empathy and human compassion from those who advocate 'life at any price' never ceases to astound me.

My own 'extreme case' scenario is this: any woman who genuinely doesn't want the baby she is carrying for any reason - and that means the vast majority of women who seek abortions.

This doesn't mean that I support abortion on demand. I am opposed to it once a baby is capable of surviving and developing healthily outside the womb and with advances in medical technology this is becoming earlier and earlier. But as long as the unborn baby draws its life from its mother, it is the mother's right alone to decide whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy and to oppose this right is to deny her humanity.

tronvillain

99Percent:
It is obvious that I was simply explaining what my opinion is, so I am at a loss as to why you felt compelled to point it out.

A moderator should not attempt to mislead the lurkers 99Percent - nothing I have said has a direct relationship to subjectivism. Someone with faith (given the complete absence of evidence for it, I will call it faith rather than belief) in objective morality could make the same statements. If you like we could investigate why I hold the opinions on this issue that I do, and then we would be addressing subjective morality.

Sabine Grant

Hello all !

As life is defined in an already born human being via the presence of brain activity which engenders cognition, my opinion is that the same should apply to an unborn fetus.

As palliative measures are applied to a human being enduring physical sufferings, the same should apply to a fetus evaluated to be receptive to physical pain during an abortion procedure.

The term birth control is misleading in any debate on abortion... conception control should be the primary focus.

Termination of pregnancy needs to be regarded as the consequence of poor conception control. It is not really a solution. But a last resort when a woman cannot assume a child. ( setting aside pregnancies which occur during a rape for example where the woman has been violated and it is not the result of any negligence).

We have 1.5 million last resort measures taken in the US per year. Many can be avoided by using safe contraception.

Here is the dilemna... do we promote abortion over contraception if we do not set guidelines which will include exploring when a fetus has brain activity? do we need to wait past 12 weeks after conception to have an abortion? ( exception made for cases where medical reasons will make it that the mother changes her mind and wishes to terminate the pregnancy).

I support the right for women to choose whether or not they wish to assume a child as our bodies indeed are a measure of life growth and support to an unborn being. The source of that function is the body and if we forbid a woman to choose what she will do with her own body, we then must consider forbidding overeating which promotes obesity, the abuse of any substance which alterates bodily functions and so and so on... we obviously then interfere with the freedom to dispose of our own body. That is the only way I can attribute some ethics to terminating a pregnancy. That argument can still stand even as we aknowledge the degrees of humanity in a growing fetus. The difference is that we are less hypocritical about the whole issue.

However exploring those stages of growth in the fetus and determining when brain activity starts IMO can promote a greater sense of responsibility with contraception. One would consider protecting her body from unwanted pregnancies with greater care if one were to be presented with facts that expose the humanity of the unborn rather than " there is absolutly no life... no big deal".