FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

View Poll Results: when does a human being have access to the protection of the laws of our land?
after conception 9 12.86%
3 months after conception 7 10.00%
6 months after conception 15 21.43%
9 months after conception 3 4.29%
after birth 33 47.14%
18 years after birth 3 4.29%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-16-2003, 12:27 PM   #51
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
What phenomal thing happens between the last day of the second trimester and the first day of the third trimester that suddenly changes the "blob of cells" into a "human fetus"?
It's not that it suddenly turns from a blob of cells into a human fetus, but that in the third trimester a fetus can be viable outside of the mother. Although if I remember correctly (and hence the ability to get a late-term abortion) that the status of the viability of the child is determined by the woman's doctor because every fetus may not develop at equal rates (such as the case with fetus with neural tube defects, or other defects not compatible with life.)

It is a blob of cells in the stages of the first trimester (where the vast majority of abortions are performed) and evolves into what will eventually (and hopefully) be a fully developed human child.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:43 PM   #52
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: where orange blossoms bloom...
Posts: 1,802
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fatherphil
when presented with the quality of life issue and the abortion issue, you stated the "fundamental" on the qol side.
I am pretty sure that Helen was using fundamental as in terms of "underlying". She is right, babies are being conceived/born who are not wanted. Perhaps people should take more responsibility in sex...
beth is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:52 PM   #53
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenM
Whether she would have been allowed or not, I hope women are never forced to have abortions if they don't want to, even if tests/screening indicate that the baby almost certainly has some incurable health problem.
Oh, absolutely. I hope I didn't imply anything other than the necesity of givin the parents a choice. As my research last night told me, I do not have that choice in this state.

Quote:
And, for what it's worth, I don't see that it would necessarily ruin the lives of siblings to have a sibling who died in infancy. I would think that whether it did would be mostly to do with how the parents handled the situation. Of course I don't know how it was in the specific case of your cousins.
Agreed as well. It did not ruin their lives. It brought a difficult to understand sad situation into their lives for a while. But it takes a lot to ruin a kid's life. They have an easier time letting go of pain than we do, especially very young kids.

Quote:
In my opinion, pro-choice should never compromise the freedom of women to have their babies if that's what they want to do. I find it hard to believe that no women are pushed into having abortions that they'd rather not have and this does concern me.
Well said. Nothing like that should ever be pressured on people (or unplugging a respirator).
Daleth is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 01:35 PM   #54
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Default

Life began billions of years and extends continuously from then to now, but the life of n individual organism begins at conception. Does that entitle a human organism to protection by the laws of your land at conception? I don't see why it should.
tronvillain is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 02:36 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by blondegoddess
I am pretty sure that Helen was using fundamental as in terms of "underlying". She is right, babies are being conceived/born who are not wanted. Perhaps people should take more responsibility in sex...
but to me the bigger problem is that we are killing these unwanted chilren in the womb rather than fulfilling our obligation to care for them. that children are concieved in an imperfect world has been a fact since day one and will always be that way. we have just gotten real good at snuffing them out before the act can trouble our conscience.
fatherphil is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:09 PM   #56
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenM
...and, fwiw, some pro-life advocates know this and are involved trying to improve the environment.

Not all of them simply argue against/oppose abortion.
That's really great to hear. I've never come across such a thing. Do you (or anyone), off the top of your head, happen to know any organization that thinks this way or at least a vague idea of what sort of solutions they'd like to see implemented? That they don't take action like this or even seem to welcome talking about it is my biggest beef with the "pro-life" movement as I've always known it.
Daleth is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:24 PM   #57
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fatherphil
but to me the bigger problem is that we are killing these unwanted chilren in the womb rather than fulfilling our obligation to care for them. that children are concieved in an imperfect world has been a fact since day one and will always be that way. we have just gotten real good at snuffing them out before the act can trouble our conscience.
Maybe you can answer the last question I posted, then. How do you suggest we arrange society to care for over half a million additional babies with parents who are unwilling to or incapable of caring for them every year? Keep in mind that a greater percentage of these babies (than of the ones who are alrady born) will have been conceived by parents on drugs, will have HIV, will have severe disabilities. Also keep in mind that a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant and doesn't feel love for the fetus may very well provide very poor prenatal care (drink, smoke, eat poorly, continue drug use).

I hate all of this. I would love to see abortion rates drop to zero. But I think blondegoddess is absolutely right. We have to cure the root of the problem, unintended pregnancies. We will only cause greater harm if we seek to cure the symptom before the disease.
Daleth is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:56 PM   #58
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Daleth
That's really great to hear. I've never come across such a thing. Do you (or anyone), off the top of your head, happen to know any organization that thinks this way or at least a vague idea of what sort of solutions they'd like to see implemented? That they don't take action like this or even seem to welcome talking about it is my biggest beef with the "pro-life" movement as I've always known it.
I was thinking of centers like the Carefirst Pregnancy Center. There is one of these close to where I live.

As best I know they provide various sorts of help to pregnant women.

Maybe that's not what you thought I meant. It's small-scale, to help individual women - maybe you don't count that as 'improving the environment'.

Anyway, I know some of the people a little who work at Carefirst and they seem very kind and caring.

Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:58 PM   #59
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Daleth
I hate all of this. I would love to see abortion rates drop to zero. But I think blondegoddess is absolutely right. We have to cure the root of the problem, unintended pregnancies. We will only cause greater harm if we seek to cure the symptom before the disease.
Fwiw, that's what I meant by my post earlier, which fatherphil said (I think) was taking the qol issue rather than the abortion issue.

Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 04:15 PM   #60
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenM
Fwiw, that's what I meant by my post earlier, which fatherphil said (I think) was taking the qol issue rather than the abortion issue.
Yes, I understand that. I think our positions are very similar on this issue.

Quote:
Maybe that's not what you thought I meant. It's small-scale, to help individual women - maybe you don't count that as 'improving the environment'.
I wasn't sure exactly what you did mean. I'd like to see large pro-life organizations take up this issue because it's inextricably linked to their goal and would make their goal far more humane. But any local level organization hoping to reduce or eliminate abortion by working to solve the problems that produce the need for it is great by me. I wish I saw a lot more of that, even on an individual level.
Daleth is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.