Abortion thread

[totalia]

A woman cry's when she miscarries because she has become used to the fact that it is a baby in her own mind. That doesn't mean that it is, only that her mind and emotions see it as such.

 

[chobie]

FWIW, I am not even making an argument against abortion. I am arguing against moral justification based on EMOTION rather than facts...ie, it is not a baby, just a lump of cells. If so, why do women cry when they miscarry? Why do we offer sympathy? Why do we carry around ultrasound pictures?

I don't get it. You talk about it not being an emotional issue and then you bring up emotional issue to justify making it illegal. The facts are it is not considered a baby until it is viable outside of the womb. There is no emotion in that.

 

[auntpolly]

Is that the case? Serious question. Would he have been charged with something else or nothing at all?

Wasn't there that man in the Midwest that killed his wife (Lori?) & dumped her body in a garbage dump. Wasn't his wife just pregnant? Was he charged with anything?

No - Mark Hacking was only charged with his wife's murder. I think that some states are trying to overturn this, but I don't believe that it is considered murder in the first trimester.

 

[Immelman]

it's a blob of cells. 23 and 23. it just forms a **** sapien baby. I know it's cuter than a millipede. but it's the same principle. DNA. do some research and see how many separations you are from a banana. not many.

I don't buy into the morality ploy. I did what I did. no sleepless nights. it's no different than a hamster eating it's newborns. it's just tissue. and tissue decomposes when you die.

 

[chobie]

He was charged with her death, not the death of the embryo. Legally you cannot be charged for the criminal death of an embryo/fetus before the current medical limit of viability, usually considered to be 26 weeks LMP or 24 weeks gestational age.

Now that seems logical to me.

 

[phillybeth]

I received something in the mail that showed that it is clearly more than just a blob of cells.

It's no longer 'blob of cells' pretty much from the time it implants in the uterine wall, about 7-10 days after fertilization. However, most mammalian embryos are virtually identical. At six weeks, it would impossible to tell a human embryo from most mammals and definitely from most higher primates.

Linky-link for the curious, it shows a 6 week human embryo: http://www.sptimes.com/News/112001/Floridian/A_window_on_the_womb.shtml

 

[totalia]

Woo Immelman, that's harsh. I agree but wow what a way of putting it.

 

[totalia]

It's no longer 'blob of cells' pretty much from the time it implants in the uterine wall, about 7-10 days after fertilization. However, most mammalian embryos are virtually identical. At six weeks, it would impossible to tell a human embryo from most mammals and definitely from most higher primates.

Linky-link for the curious, it shows a 6 week human embryo: http://www.sptimes.com/News/112001/Floridian/A_window_on_the_womb.shtml

if you believe that then you know very little biology. Just because something has human biology (and not even that at 6 weeks) does not make it a viable human being.

 

[poohandwendy]

I don't think anyone could dispute the fact that an embryo/fetus is human. But it is not a child, toddler or adult. It is a human fetus or a human embryo.

No dispute here. However, an infant is also totally dependant, unlike an adult. If left alone, they will die. If nurtured, they will live and become an adult. Much in the same way a fteus/embryo will also flourish and become an infant. Why should an infant have the exact same status as human beings? Why is it not legal to kill an infant if the mother chooses to? (I am just arguing the dependancy aspect)

 

[phillybeth]

if you believe that then you know very little biology.

On the contrary, I know quite a lot of biology.

Another link for the curious:


http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/fetus/fetus.html

 

[Immelman]

my wife and I have dealt with miscarriages. too many of them. we're not a fan of the 'souls' theory.

 

[chobie]

No dispute here. However, an infant is also totally dependant, unlike an adult. If left alone, they will die. If nurtured, they will live and become an adult. Much in the same way a fteus/embryo will also flourish and become an infant. Why should an infant have the exact same status as human beings? Why is it not legal to kill an infant if the mother chooses to? (I am just arguing the dependancy aspect)

Because anyone can take care of that infant once it is born. An embryo is dependent on the host's womb to survive and that is why people believe that only the gestating woman should have the choice to continue to gestate or not.

 

[totalia]

No dispute here. However, an infant is also totally dependant, unlike an adult. If left alone, they will die. If nurtured, they will live and become an adult. Much in the same way a fteus/embryo will also flourish and become an infant. Why should an infant have the exact same status as human beings? Why is it not legal to kill an infant if the mother chooses to? (I am just arguing the dependancy aspect)

And whats your point? Just because something MAY live doesn't mean that it should or will.

A fetus is NOT an infant. It is not a child.

 

[TeresaNJ]

So, a fetus that is born prematurely at 25 weeks who cannot live on it's own outside the womb, but can live with medical assistance until his/her organs are more developed, should still be considered a parasite and therefore okay to abort? I have seen many a spontaneous abortion while working in an ER, and believe me, they are not blobs, they have ten fingers and toes, ears, eyes, nose, mouth, etc. These are very early miscarriages.

I am definitely anti-abortion in every circumstance. The only circumstance where I could even begin to understand someone else choosing to go that route would be if the mother's life were at stake. I just hate when people use the reasoning that the embryo/fetus is a parasite who can't live unless they are in utero. That just isn't true anymore. Fetus' are living outside the womb at earlier and earlier gestational ages due to the advances in medicine.

So if you are pro-choice, that is your right, but please don't rationalize it with the parasite example.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

How can you be sure the picture is what it says it is?

Why would I not trust the integrity of the photograph?

When I hear blob of cells--I think of something to be looked at under a microscope in biology class--the aborted "material" is bigger than what can go on a slide under a microscope (or whatever those glass things are called) and it is quite visible to the naked eye and is very 3-D and does look like a baby.

I did find a website with photos of different stages of gestation
http://www.crockhamhill.kent.sch.uk/teachers/pshe/baby_growth.htm
The baby pic must have been of an aborted fetus that was closer to 7 weeks of age as it doesn't resemble the pic of a precise 6 week old baby/fetus/embryo--whatever it is called medically.

 

[poohandwendy]

I don't get it. You talk about it not being an emotional issue and then you bring up emotional issue to justify making it illegal. The facts are it is not considered a baby until it is viable outside of the womb. There is no emotion in that.

I am not tring to justify it being made illegal, can you point out where I have mentioned that?

I am trying to point out that we (as a society) use emotion to decide the worthiness of that same DNA that is you, me a toddler, an elderly person. It is all the same exact thing, only difference is the appearance, age and level of dependancy. So why do we not consider it perfectly legal to kill an infant, who has pretty much the same DNA and level of dependancy as a fetus?

 

[phillybeth]

if you believe that then you know very little biology. Just because something has human biology (and not even that at 6 weeks) does not make it a viable human being.

Whoah, I never said that it was VIABLE at 6 weeks, just that it is not a 'blob' of undifferentiated cells. It's not an embryo until it implants, that is when structures etc start to develop.

 

[totalia]

Because anyone can take care of that infant once it is born. An embryo is dependent on the host's womb to survive and that is why people believe that only the gestating woman should have the choice to continue to gestate or not.

Exactly. People seem to keep assuming that we are saying all children should be aborted period. That is not the case. Most of the Pro-choice just realize that there are exceptions to every rule. There are sometimes good reasons for an abortion.

 

[Blondy876]

I beleive that in every case abortion is murder. However, other posters are right, it isn't black and white. I believe that by having sex the woman has made her choice. (Except of cases of rape or incest) She made the choice to have sex, she made the choice to take a chance of getting pregnant.

I know what I would do if faced with having to choose between my life and my childs, I would take the chance of my life ending to have the baby. But everyone has to make their own decision, and live with the consequences of that decision.

I feel that unless there is a medical reason, or a case of rape or incest abortion should not be an option. Just because someone went out and had sex and got pregnant should not be a good enough reason.

Like I said I believe that all abortion is murder. But I also believe that I have never walked in the shoes of a women who has to make that difficult choice. (Thankfully)

 

[chobie]

So, a fetus that is born prematurely at 25 weeks who cannot live on it's own outside the womb, but can live with medical assistance until his/her organs are more developed, should still be considered a parasite and therefore okay to abort? I have seen many a spontaneous abortion while working in an ER, and believe me, they are not blobs, they have ten fingers and toes, ears, eyes, nose, mouth, etc. These are very early miscarriages.

I am definitely anti-abortion in every circumstance. The only circumstance where I could even begin to understand someone else choosing to go that route would be if the mother's life were at stake. I just hate when people use the reasoning that the embryo/fetus is a parasite who can't live unless they are in utero. That just isn't true anymore. Fetus' are living outside the womb at earlier and earlier gestational ages due to the advances in medicine.

So if you are pro-choice, that is your right, but please don't rationalize it with the parasite example.

No, once it can survive, by any means, without the use of an individual's uterus, then it is legally considered a baby with full protection under the law.