Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#1 Old 15th May 2008 at 11:37 AM
Abortions reduced to 20 weeks, right or wrong?
I recently came across this and had a hard time thinking if it was right or wrong. What do you think?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_page_id=1770

To be, or not to be,
That is the question.
Everyone has a hidden identity!
Advertisement
Field Researcher
#2 Old 15th May 2008 at 11:56 AM
Honestly I think they should be cut back to say... 12 weeks. And that's being generous. I think it's horrid that someone would wait until their pregnancy was 5 months along before deciding to rid themselves of it. Besides that there are documented cases of babies surviving as early as 22 weeks, so I see that closer to the murder side of the debate.

The only exception being if it was a life or death case.
Scholar
#3 Old 15th May 2008 at 12:14 PM
Well, I'm tempted to say they should be extended to full term (and for 6-12 months thereafter), but I'm likely to get flamed for that....

ehh, I'll say it anyway.
#4 Old 15th May 2008 at 12:52 PM
whats the difference between aborting when its just an egg or when its grown arms and legs? its still life.
just because its has a face, doesn't mean its more inhumane or 'murderous' to abort.
Scholar
#5 Old 15th May 2008 at 12:53 PM
Okay, maybe not full term. If you're doing that, you're sparking the debate of infant euthanasia. Should we be allowed to kill an infant with some unavoidable horrifically debilitating disease such as Tay-Sachs or Rett's? (I'm really sorry, some of you here may have relatives with such conditions, but I'm just bringing it up as a point. I realise it's an extremely sensitive issue).
Now, see, THAT is something I'm not decided about, it's such a difficult decision to make because you know how it's going to end.

Lozotron, there's plenty of difference. An egg is not fertilised, it has no genetic identity, it's just a random cell of the mother's. A zygote has it's own genetic identity, but it cannot survive by itself and neither can an embryo.
It's just past a point in the foetal stage that it's actually considered viable and you may be killing an actual life that's capable of surviving. 'Til then, it's a ball of cells.

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
Scholar
#6 Old 15th May 2008 at 1:18 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Alissa888
Lozotron, there's plenty of difference. An egg is not fertilised, it has no genetic identity, it's just a random cell of the mother's.

Cells of the mother have a genetic identity - that of the mother. Theoretically, you could clone one of the mother's cells (provided it was a nucleated cell, not a red blood cell or something) and end up with a human being (a clone). No fertilisation necessary.
Scholar
#7 Old 15th May 2008 at 1:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Cells of the mother have a genetic identity - that of the mother. Theoretically, you could clone one of the mother's cells (provided it was a nucleated cell, not a red blood cell or something) and end up with a human being (a clone). No fertilisation necessary.


Except cloning is currently illegalb and by doing that, you're not creating life, you're copying it. Furthermore, our skills at cloning have been proven to be somewhat... lacklusture seeing as most/all major animals we have cloned have a tendency to develop obscure conditions and die off.
By 'genetic identity' I mean, something that distinguishes it from the mother.

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
Theorist
#8 Old 15th May 2008 at 4:31 PM
And the cells of the unborn child are genetically different from the mother, making it a unique human being. It has its own genetic identity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#9 Old 15th May 2008 at 5:31 PM
Well, let me just start by saying i am completely against abortion unless it is a life or death situation. That being said, i feel if it must be done it should have been done before six weeks when the baby's heart has started beating. as long as the baby has blood to shed i think it should be a crime to shed it. at 12 weeks and especially at 20 or 24, its just stupid to say that that child is still part of its mother. in their mother, yes, but completly seperated except for the embilical cord

"No, college is for women who don't want to marry the first idiot they meet and squeeze out his bastard, moron children." Laura Prepon from That's 70's Show
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#10 Old 15th May 2008 at 5:37 PM
I was always against abortion, but to think of all the unwanted kids in homes makes me feel bad too. I think it should be reduced though, there are plenty of ways to stop getting pregnant. And as its at 24 weeks at the moment babies the smae age are getting killed and saved at the same time.

To be, or not to be,
That is the question.
Everyone has a hidden identity!
Scholar
#11 Old 15th May 2008 at 5:53 PM
Has anyone ever seen a baby being aborted when its over 12 weeks old?

It is horrible. Before 12 weeks they use a vaccum thing. But after that, they pull the baby out with forceps, limb by limb.

I don't think that it should take 5 months for someone to decide whether or not to have a baby. I'm not against abortion - if its not the right time for someone to have a baby, then that is their decision. I'd much rather a baby be aborted then have a crappy life.
Forum Resident
#12 Old 15th May 2008 at 6:04 PM
I think 24 weeks is much too long...by then a baby is a little human. You just have to search 24 week old baby and theres one aborted...its horrible.

The thing that made me against abortion at 24 weeks was watching "the silent scream"
on youtube....
#13 Old 15th May 2008 at 6:17 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Well, I'm tempted to say they should be extended to full term (and for 6-12 months thereafter), but I'm likely to get flamed for that....

ehh, I'll say it anyway.


Dodd, lol, its already born at 12 months. ; )

I am against late term abortions unless it has a health reason. Be responsible and do it early, Gah.
Scholar
#14 Old 15th May 2008 at 6:20 PM
Well, technically, the baby was human to start with. Actually, it really isn't a baby at that point; it's a foetus. It's really unfair to the mother (who's obviously incapable of raising said potential child for financial/emotional or physical reasons) to say 'You've got to have the baby because it looks human'.

Quote: Originally posted by davious
And the cells of the unborn child are genetically different from the mother, making it a unique human being. It has its own genetic identity.

Good point, but it's a/a group of genetically unique cell(s) that is not viable until 24 weeks (at this point). If medicine improves to support infants born earlier than that, then fine, raise the abortion line, but so far, it's not possible.
And if you're gonna say save the foetus just because it has genetic identity, a cancer cell has unique genetic identity too. The only difference is that the zygote has potential to develop into a full human. There are SO many things that can go wrong along the way anyway. In fact, the vast majority of a woman's potential eggs are wasted, we don't even need to talk about men, the cell wastage there goes into millions. Each and every one of those has potential to develop into a new human given the right circumstances. That just doesn't happen most of the time and why should a zygote be any different?

Besides, cutting off the abortion option is just going to get people to make ridiculous attempts at it themselves, which is life threatening. People will get pregnant by accident, it's not something that's avoidable feasibly. And the line at 24 weeks right now is just because that's the survival point. If wr can support the foetus earlier than that, then perhaps it is immoral to abort. Immoral, not murder.

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#15 Old 15th May 2008 at 7:24 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Well, I'm tempted to say they should be extended to full term (and for 6-12 months thereafter), but I'm likely to get flamed for that....

ehh, I'll say it anyway.
Indeed.

I don't understand why a genetic identity is so important - as Alissa says, a cancer cell has a unique genetic identity; that doesn't mean it has a right to exist.
Of course, the response is that a cancer cell does not have the potential to grow into a human being. An unborn baby does.

Are we, then, to save every cell which could become human later in life? Should we make male masturbation illegal in order to save the sperm cells, and require that a woman is never not pregnant long enough to have a period, and lose an egg?
No, of course not. That's ridiculous.

So, then, genetic identity and potential to become a person are not sufficient criteria for protecting a.. thing. Instead, I go by my definition of alive - i.e. does it have personality, opinion, self-awareness, intelligence - in essence, does it have a soul?

I don't believe unborn children have souls. I don't believe children even start to develop souls until they are about four years old, and I believe it takes many many years for them to reach a point at which they can be considered a person. Contrary to popular opinion (get the marshmallows and the campfire songs) I actually believe that when a child dies, it is less of a loss than when an adult dies (depending on the adult, I suppose).
To get back on point - yes, abortion at 20 weeks is fine in my eyes, as is full term abortion.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#16 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:04 PM
To me, no human with self awareness and consciousness should be killed. From what I've read and what I've concluded, fetuses have no rational thought process and are not even aware of their own existence. To me, that means they're not a living human being. I classify human life as having a consciousness and some perception of awareness, which means although fetuses and coma-patients may be chemically alive, they're not really alive- they're just surviving. Until I have proof that fetuses are aware of more than just sensory stimuli and pain, I can agree with full-term and/or partial birth abortion.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Theorist
#17 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:24 PM
So you are saying we can kill comatose patients, and its not murder at all, because they aren't human anymore, since they are no longer conscious and self aware? That's pretty messed up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Mad Poster
#18 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:27 PM
We can euthanize comatose patients (or we should be able to) with the family's consent.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
#19 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider

I don't believe unborn children have souls. I don't believe children even start to develop souls until they are about four years old, and I believe it takes many many years for them to reach a point at which they can be considered a person. .

Not to be picky
But "soul" is a religious (specifically Judeo based) term, not a medical term.
And there's nothing in any text religious wise that would support your interpretation.

I think the word you are looking for is "personality".
And there are signs of personality after about 5 or so months.



BTW, When babies are born they can feel pain (ever pinched a newborn?) and therefore a partial birth abortion would in fact hurt the baby.

My opinion is if the baby can survive outside of the womb, you don't have the right to kill it, because it counts as a baby then. But before it can survive by itself, it's an extension of the mother's body, and therefore her choice.
Theorist
#20 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:35 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Rabid
We can euthanize comatose patients (or we should be able to) with the family's consent.


But that's different from what you said before. You based someone's humanity on their self-awareness and consciousness, and you specifically mentioned unborn children and comatose patients as not being self-aware or conscious. So I ask again, do you consider a person in a vegetative state to be human, or have they lost their humanity? If they are no longer human, then do you believe it is not murder to kill them, but rather something like killing a family's pet dog or something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#21 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:36 PM
Killing a dog for no reason is totally wrong. ; (

They can feel things, creepos.
Mad Poster
#22 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:42 PM
I consider that person to chemically be a human, but that's about it. Being a human and humanity hold two different definitions, to me. In that scenario, what's the point in living if you aren't able to make your own decisions or even be aware of life? I know that I wouldn't want to be artifically sustained. It's not murder to help someone with no hope escape from incessant sickness of a lack of awareness- it's mercy. Going out and just killing someone's pet dog for no reason would be crazy. Euthanizing a person or a dog isn't killing them, but that's another debate for another day. Why bring a child into a world where it's unwanted or possibly degenerate? I'd rather get an abortion than not be able to give my unborn child the life it deserves. All of this aside, it's still the woman's decision.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
#23 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:45 PM
Rabid
Ever heard of adoption?


With that logic, my best friend should have never been born because her mom didn't want her.

The thing is... this debate isn't whether it's to have an abortion (I'm prochoice)
but is it ok to have one so late to a point where the baby could possibly survive on it's own.


No one so far has given an actual reason for why *late term* abortion is really *needed*.
When you could get it done SO MUCH EASIER earlier.
Mad Poster
#24 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:51 PM
The thing about adoption is that even though so many people are sterile or have some other reason for wanting to adopt a child, more children don't get adopted than those who do. What if that child is sick, ugly, or of a minority race? No one wants those children. What kind of life is being bounced from orphanage to orphanage, foster home to foster home, never knowing a parent's love? I'd rather abort the fetus than condemn it to such a life.

Late term abortion is only needed if expelling the child (by labor or C section) becomes a threat to the mother's health. But then again, is it really about what's needed? So many abortions aren't performed because they're necessary- they're performed because the mother has some reason for not wanting to bring a child into the world. It's agiven that getting an abortion earlier in the pregnancy is easier and more effective than later in the pregnancy, but that doesn't mean that every woman will take that into consideration. Perhaps the reason for not wanting the child comes later in the pregnancy. They can't turn back time. It's not necessarily about what's needed- it's about what they have the right to do.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
#25 Old 15th May 2008 at 8:53 PM
But Rabid, it's *in the law* that it IS LEGAL if it's for health reasons.

So the c-section case is still legal.



If a mother doesn't want the child, she has nearly half a year to abort it.
So you still haven't pointed out a reason for *late term* abortion to be needed.
 
Page 1 of 21
Back to top