crocodile deathroll

The slippery slope argument is often used on this topic but I feel the the slipperly slope is self correcting. So I posted a poll to put the sllppery slope argument to the real test.

So just assume the fetus/embryo is healthy right from the start and the mother decides for whatever reason the terminate. At what stage of the pregnancy would should she draw the line?

VonEvilstein

I voted three months. After my experience in the tram this morning, with a small girl repeadtedly (and loudly) singing the first two lines of "Jingle Bells", and her dad's impotence to do anything about this, infanticide looks more and more appealing.


"Oh, for an hour of Herod!"

brighid

Up to the point of brain and nervous system development that supports more then reflexive reaction without question, after that viability of the fetus should be determined on an individual basis by a woman's medical doctor, and the appropriate determination should be made based upon that conclusion. I support late-term abortion in the case of fetal defect and to save the life of the mother, but I support reasonable restrictions past 3 months.

Brighid

frostymama

I voted for 5 months because that is when viability comes into the picture. Personally I would push that number even further out for serious fetal abnormalities.

I can honestly see instances where infanticide would be a merciful option (like in cases of war/ethnic genocide where death will not be quick, or in severe famine where death from starvation is pretty much guaranteed) I don't think it should be legal here in the US, but I would not think ill (for example) of a Jewish mother who smothered her infant rather than let the Nazis take it from her to do who the hell knows what during WWII.

Ab_Normal

Don't you just love being a parent and having to think about this kind of stuff? *Shudder.*

The poll: Off the top of my head, I picked 4 months.

frostymama

Yes, having kids did sick things to my brain for some reason. I never used to think about stuff like that before.

The sad thing is that there have probably been more mothers than I would like to imagine who have been placed in that kind of awful situation. It would be my absolute worst nightmare. I would hope that I would have the strength to make sure my children didn't suffer if I were in their shoes. The truth is that it would probably drive me insane.

dangin

Hey, let's all rent sophie's choice for a warm happy moment of parenthood.

I hear you though. A new part of us grows to love the children we make. Loosing a child changes that growth of unmeasurable love into a dead spot of unmeasurable anguish.

Hobbs

I was about to advise frostymama not to watch that movie if she has not yet already seen it.

But, to lighten things up a little:

I think the line should be drawn at about 18 or so years after birth. Think of how much easier it would be to discipline teenagers and keep them in line: "Hey, cut that out! I can still abort you, you know!"

Back to serious mode, a "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument form. Someone who explicitly appeals to a slippery slope is in effect admitting that their argument is a bad one. It is admitting that I don't have an argument against taking step 1 so I'll argue against taking step 10 and hope that is sufficient to convince you not to take step 1. But if you are, say, 9 steps from the edge of the Grand Canyon and you want a better view, arguing against taking the 10th step is utterly beside the point if the question is the taking 6 or 7 steps.

A late term fetus can feel and experience and is viable if untimely ripped from the womb; an embryo, though it is biologically alive and genetically human, clearly is not a person. I like the Roe decision, I think it is socially and scientifically responsible: no restrictions first trimester (when something like 85% or more of abortions take place), some reasonable restrictions in the second, lots more (but not a total ban; e.g. severe abnormalities, life of the mother, and such) in the third (when it has developed a functional brain and is viable).

"Personhood," like "baldness," is not an all-or-nothing quality; it is emergent. To argue that since a 9 month fetus is clearly a functional person therefore a 9 day old fetus is, would be as ridiculous as arguing that since a 9 day old fetus is clearly not a functional person then a 9 month old fetus is not. (I suspect this is blatantly apparent to most people who post here, but for some reason some people just can't seem to grasp this point, so I went ahead and stated the should-be-obvious.)

JerryM

For purely elective abortions, that is, no medical problems in mother or fetus--no restrictions up to natural viability--6 months (I believe 25 weeks actually corresponds better to data on viability.)

Loren Pechtel

I have a *BIG* problem with basing it on viability. What happens as medical technology advances? What happens when the age of viability is pre-conception? (ie, an artificial womb and IVF?)

Instead, I base it on when is the earliest the mind functions. From what I've seen, this is 6 months. It's the mind that sets us apart from the animals, therefore it's the mind that should decide.