Quote :

" I also don't think you can sit there and say it's okay to abort at month 8.5. If you can I'd love to hear the logic behind it."

There are numerous developmental issues that do not manifest until later in pregnancy. Why should a woman's choice be regulated by some arbitrary, pre-term, limit when giving birth to that child could likely result in an unfulfilled existence without any positive contribution to society? That decision should be left up to being between a woman and her family, not by some group of social conservatives who don't like abortion anyways.

2/11/2013 12:29:18 PM

Quote :

"I also don't think you can sit there and say it's okay to abort at month 8.5. If you can I'd love to hear the logic behind it."

It's ok because the woman should have complete say over what she does to/with her own body.

What if the 8.5 month gestated fetus has Anencephaly or any other fatal disorder? You think it's morally preferable to force a woman to give birth to a stillborn/will die in a matter of hours baby?

That's the only question I need answering. Is it morally permissible to force a woman to go through childbirth if she doesn't want to?

2/11/2013 12:44:13 PM

Can it live outside the womb? If so I want to possibly euthanize anyone with similar disorders.

Lets get Feinstein to draft an appropriate list.

2/11/2013 12:46:29 PM

I'd argue it would be morally permissible to euthanize anyone who is suffering and will die shortly anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is.

But does that mean that you're OK with forcing a woman to have childbirth to a stillborn baby?

[Edited on February 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2013 12:50:24 PM

I guess we're on the same page then.

2/11/2013 12:51:18 PM

Sorry, should have specified healthy 8.5 month old.

2/11/2013 1:26:10 PM

Quote :

"The real debate is when does personhood/life begin. Prior to a fetus being a person I think most rational people are okay with abortion. I don't think a woman who takes the morning after pill or who has a miscarriage is a murderer. I also don't think that an early term abortion is an issue. I also don't think you can sit there and say it's okay to abort at month 8.5. If you can I'd love to hear the logic behind it."

It's reasonable (to me) to say that personhood begins when consciousness begins and memories start to form. I haven't yet heard a good argument against this that doesn't involve spiritual beliefs.

There is the argument that fetuses begin to feel pain at 6 weeks, but that seems completely arbitrary to me. Jellyish feel pain. It's just a neurological response to stimulus.

2/11/2013 1:59:26 PM

I think that's what most people who don't drag spiritual mumbo jumbo into it feel. At that point I think they then have the moral right to be protected from death. I do feel like if an abortion is sought prior to then it seems moral to allow it. After that point I think you've got a hard time saying that the woman's right to self-ownership of her body outweighs the baby's right to life.

I think this will become much less of an issue once it becomes possible for a baby to survive out of the womb through some system of medical devices. If you want the kid out and you want no responsibility of raising it that's fine, but not at the cost of its life.

2/11/2013 2:07:33 PM

Quote :

"After that point I think you've got a hard time saying that the woman's right to self-ownership of her body outweighs the baby's right to life."

I don't have a hard time saying it, except calling a fetus a baby is begging the question. You have to say one outweighs the other and I don't see any reason to think someone surrenders their right to self ownership just because another organism is inside of them.

[Edited on February 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2013 2:44:55 PM

Even if that other organism is defined as a human being? That's the debate, not whether a clump of cells can be removed, but rather if the fetus reaches the point that it is a person is it morally acceptable to abort?

2/11/2013 2:54:29 PM

If god thinks all embryos are to become human then why are there so many miscarriages?

2/11/2013 3:16:12 PM

cause god's a hypocritical, vengeful, petty, sick bastard

2/11/2013 3:41:14 PM

Quote :

"Even if that other organism is defined as a human being? That's the debate"

thats one debate

even if you define that other organism as a human being there is still a debate, why should one be forced to ignore their own self-preservation even if you define it as a human being? this comes back to the famous pianist example, if you wake up with a famous pianist sewn to your back, your body supporting it, are you required to continue to support it for 8 months?

[Edited on February 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM. Reason : 8=9 on a small keyboard]

2/11/2013 4:18:05 PM

Quote :

"Even if that other organism is defined as a human being?"

Yes. If you magically transported a fully grown adult into a woman I wouldn't have a problem with her aborting it.

I would of course prefer her to find a way to get the guy out in a way that didn't harm her or the fully grown adult, but I wouldn't want to make a law preventing her from killing it to get it out of her or taking any action to her own body that results in an automatic rejection of it.

2/11/2013 4:53:11 PM

^

2/11/2013 5:01:02 PM

And that is (admittedly drunk but still amazingly able to click the squiggly lines to correct misspellings ) my point: how wrong it would be if a woman, 8.5 months pregnant, punches herself repeatedly in the stomach or ingests a potion prescribed by the Bible (Num 5:27, holy shit I'm wasted and still able to cite references for claims) to miscarriage to rid herself of her symbiote charge her of the crime of murder.

[Edited on February 11, 2013 at 10:40 PM. Reason : adverb instead of adjective bitches]

2/11/2013 10:22:09 PM

bump for NC

7/3/2013 4:22:39 PM

Ugh, to be reminded of drunk posting.

7/3/2013 4:49:25 PM

7/3/2013 5:14:42 PM

shouldn't all men refrain from posting since this is a women's issue?

7/5/2013 1:45:07 AM

Quite the opposite. Women should refrain from posting since they are completely incapable of considering the issue in a dispassionate and objective manner. Some issues only men should rule on.

7/5/2013 1:32:10 PM

Quote :

"It's reasonable (to me) to say that personhood begins when consciousness begins and memories start to form. I haven't yet heard a good argument against this that doesn't involve spiritual beliefs."

I have no memories before 2 or 3 years old, so I would probably amend that argument.

I'm completely pro-choice, but aborting a healthy, 8.5 month old fetus is absolutely horrific. I think there's a line somewhere, and that line comes well before the baby is outside of the womb.

7/5/2013 1:42:13 PM

You may not have formed lasting memories (although some may still exist in the cloudy depths of your subconscious) but you certainly formed memories and were conscious then. Some level of consciousness and memory formation likely begins in the womb.

7/5/2013 4:08:58 PM

Quote :

"I think there's a line somewhere, and that line comes well before the baby is outside of the womb."

A line that you would call murder? Should a woman who ingests something or does something do her body then be charged with a crime? I'm particularly interested in your opinion as I believe bodily autonomy is as important to you as it is to me.

From Smath regarding a blastocyst:

Quote :

"disagree 100%. is it a fully developed person? of course not. is a 1 year old a fully developed person either? 5 year old? 10 year old? 17 year old? 21 year old? do brainwave patterns change over time depending on level of development? (yes) There should be a level of protection for everyone, especially the young and helpless. "

So the 1/3 or so that never become people completely at the fault of the woman's reproductive system, what are they exactly? Negligent homicide?

[Edited on July 5, 2013 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2013 4:39:11 PM

Government has no place regulating what people do to their bodies (where they do it is a different argument). Once we start legislating this, it becomes a wickedly slippery slope. If your opposition to abortion is religiously-derived, fine (and I totally respect it), but to superimpose that on an entire society is just plain wrong.

That being said, it has been well-established that a fetus isn't viable outside of the womb prior to 20-24 weeks. Given that the "baby" cannot survive on it's own, it is no more than a parasite at that point, all spiritual/social considerations aside. It is hardly different from a tumor or an infection. The problem is that we attach a social identity to a fetus, and all pragmatism goes out the window.

Quote :

"parasite /'par??sit/ Noun An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."

[Edited on July 5, 2013 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on July 5, 2013 at 6:37 PM. Reason : grammar]

7/5/2013 6:31:02 PM

Well, that and almost all pregnancies are the result of the conscious decision to have sex. That's sort of why the "famous pianist" argument falls apart, IMO. It would be more honest to argue that one should be allowed to remove the pianist even if you agreed to have him sewn to your back with the full understanding that he would be there for 9 months.

I'm completely in favor of letting people sell their organs, commit suicide, and just about anything else they want to do with their own bodies, but when it starts to cause real damage to another person that's where I'd draw the line.

Once we've nailed down when a fetus becomes a person based on solid, scientific reasoning it should be afforded the same protections as any other person.

7/5/2013 6:59:29 PM

So then you just flip your 100 level philosophy text book to the open window analogy, its on the next page after the pianist

7/6/2013 1:22:27 AM

^^^ what about a new born baby? it's not capable of surviving on its own. are we allowed to bash its head in with a shovel then?

moreover, you are begging the question by declaring by fiat that the only issue at play here is a woman's dominion over her body. That's disingenuous to the extreme.

7/6/2013 1:51:22 AM

A new born baby definitely can survive without the "host"/mother

[Edited on July 6, 2013 at 1:55 AM. Reason : a womans dominion over her own body is the main issue ]

7/6/2013 1:54:50 AM

ok, take a newborn baby and stuff in a garbage can. come back in a week and tell me what you see. It doesn't need any specific person, but it most certainly needs a person. Don't be obtuse

And, no, a woman's body is NOT the main issue when the main thing anyone ever argues about is when life begins (or, at least, when human life is deserving of some kind of protection). Hell, YOU AND I are fucking discussing that RIGHT FUCKING NOW. At least be intellectually honest enough to admit that fact.

[Edited on July 6, 2013 at 2:04 AM. Reason : ]

7/6/2013 1:57:20 AM

You would put a baby in a trashcan? You're a disgusting monster!

(because clearly, after the baby is born, anyone else can care for it)

I'm done with you, idiot

7/6/2013 2:04:11 AM

nice rebuttal, and then you resort to name calling. That really shows how well you have considered the issue. Keep living in ignorance, dude.

Quote :

"(because clearly, after the baby is born, anyone else can care for it)"

I'm glad you walked right into that foolish statement. The unborn doesn't even require any particular mother, so, again, how is the newborn any different? What, specifically, changes the instant an unborn child plops out of a vagina?

7/6/2013 2:05:38 AM

Quote :

"The unborn doesn't even require any particular mother, so, again, how is the newborn any different? What, specifically, changes the instant an unborn child plops out of a vagina?"

The baby is no longer physically contingent on the mother. The specific mother that it is inside of. There is no conceivable way to transport a fetus into a different host (or into the world separate from a host) without overriding the mother's physical autonomy. So these notions of "all that matters is the baby" are logically unsound. Unless you don't value the personal autonomy of each person as the most important freedom how can you legislate what a woman does to her own body? Explain to me how abortion is murder and you still don't want to control what a person does to their own body?

aaronburro from the other thread:

Quote :

"If we allow you to put words in my mouth, then sure."

Please provide definitions of "alive" and "human" that don't fit both the definition of a clump of my cells and a blastocyst.

[Edited on July 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2013 12:57:43 PM

If you resort to a coat hanger, then you probably don't need to be reproducing anyway.

7/6/2013 4:43:05 PM

Let's not use the word "plops."

7/6/2013 6:12:11 PM

Quote :

"xplain to me how abortion is murder and you still don't want to control what a person does to their own body?"

What?

1. abortion is murder because they are taking the life of a young human. you can say it's not a human all you want, but it most definitely is. (has a distinctive genetic code, it's own tissues, organs, and systems at various stages of development)

2. if something a person does to their own body affects another person, they are no longer just doing something to their own body.

[Edited on July 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2013 6:19:38 PM

1 is right, 2 is not necessarily right.

Since when is murder always wrong? Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, but most of you think he should go free.

7/7/2013 1:14:39 AM

murder and killing are not the same thing. I don't use the terms interchangeably. If someone kills another to protect his or her own life (with no other options), i would not necessarily consider that murder.

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 10:45:53 AM

Lol, k.

7/7/2013 1:41:41 PM

If we want to be technical, murder is "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Since abortion is currently legal, murder isn't really the proper term...

Again, there's this tendency to attach social meaning to a fetus, which leads to the "a fetus is a person" argument. However, to be a person requires an identity, which you don't have as a fetus inside of a womb until you've started into the fetal viability stage. This is roughly around 5 months, give or take, and I don't think anyone is arguing that at this point it isn't a person. Prior to this, the fetus exists solely because the mother exists. Kill the mother and you kill the fetus...I don't know how you can say a fetus has an identity at this point.

If we could remove the petty social meanings that we've attached to the abortion issue and actually approach it from a scientific/philosophical viewpoint, I'm sure a consensus could be reached. Unfortunately, we all know that will never happen

7/7/2013 1:59:48 PM

Quote :

"I don't know how you can say a fetus has an identity at this point."

it has it's own distinct genetic make-up, it's own heartbeat (which can be measured only after a few weeks), it's own tissues, etc. No, it can't live without a mother, but neither can a newborn/infant/toddler/child to varying levels.

Quote :

"Lol, k."

you truly live up to your username with responses like that. anyone who says "killing" and "murder" are the exact same thing... well would be better off being aborted.

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 5:19:49 PM

A newborn/infant/child can live without its mother absolutely fine

7/7/2013 5:21:40 PM

lol no they can't. they need their mother or some artificial substitute

just like an embryo.

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 5:40:11 PM

Quote :

"The baby is no longer physically contingent on the mother."

And our medical science has advance to the point where this is true even of an unborn child.

Quote :

" Unless you don't value the personal autonomy of each person as the most important freedom how can you legislate what a woman does to her own body?"

I'm sorry, I value the right to existence above a woman's desire not to be inconvenienced by the consequences of her previous decisions and actions. Call me crazy, but I think one is certainly higher than the other on the list of rights.

7/7/2013 5:45:13 PM

I love how you trivialize the reasons one may have for an abortion.

7/7/2013 5:49:25 PM

who has done that?

7/7/2013 6:03:39 PM

Quote :

"a woman's desire not to be inconvenienced by the consequences of her previous decisions and actions"

Like being raped?

Sorry, forgot that reproductive organs shut down during legitimate rape.

7/7/2013 6:07:29 PM

Quote :

"lol no they can't. "

BABYSITTING IS MURDER!

7/7/2013 6:28:36 PM

I don't have a problem with other people murdering a wide variety of animals, including the most intelligent including dolphins, elephants, and primates. A reasonable requirement, however, is to avoid unnecessary suffering and avoiding an all-out genocide - requirements that we seem to fail to enforce uniformly.

I think those same requirements should apply to fetuses, sure.

7/7/2013 6:34:51 PM

Quote :

"^^^ what about a new born baby? it's not capable of surviving on its own."

It's like you literally haven't heard of the concept of fetal viability

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 6:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2013 6:36:55 PM