Abortion thread

[chobie]

The scientific community has never defined when life starts. They dont understand the criteria any more than you or I do.

Kay then until we have that definition we will just have to continue to leave it up to the individual woman to decide. God bless America.

 

[WDWHound]

With all do respect (and I mean that sincerely) I don't believe a man can understand how horrifying it is for a pro-choice woman to be told anyone, but especially a man, what they can do with their bodies. Much of the passion of we pro-choice women comes from this.

I agree, and the womans rights need to be strongly considered. However, IF (and only IF) a baby is alive, than the rights of its boby need protection too. I understand the womans rights side of this, but we will never solve the problem until we understand the Babys rights, if there are any.

 

[chobie]

I agree, and the womans rights need to be strongly considered. However, IF (and only IF) a baby is alive, than the rights of its boby need protection too. I understand the womans rights side of this, but we will never solve the problem until we understand the Babys rights, if there are any.

There is no problem. Abortion is safe and legal in this country.

 

[WDWHound]

It's not just about physical attachment. Its about viability. If the fetus can be removed and survive by any means outside of the uterus it is viable an is a life and society can decide who will then care for the child. As long as its survival is based solely on the host's uterus then only one with the uterus being so used should be able to decide what happens. That's my argument.

That makes sense. Now, if we devlope the technology that a baby can be raised viable outside the womb after 3 months gestation in the mother, would you consider that baby alive and would it be reasonable to aska mother to submit to surgery to save the baby in this case?

 

[totalia]

I remember when we went to have a cat spayed. we got a phone call from the vet saying he couldn't do it. our cat was pregnant, and too far along. he couldn't abort the kittens. I always found it ironic.

life begins when a cell divides. it then follows the DNA code onto whatever it's going to become. the only problem I have with my pro-choice stance is it's all up to the woman. even if the dad wants to raise the kid, tough. but on the flip side, if the woman wants to keep the kid and the father doesn't, tough. pay 20% of your income until the kid is 18.

I was lucky in my instance, because my girlfriend was determined to go to college, and her pregnancy was a problem that had to be dealt with. but she never said, I'm getting an abortion, like it or not. the first thing she asked me was 'what are we going to do about this'?

I felt that I must answer the thing about woman being the only ones that have the say.

They should be.

You see, a woman who carries a pregnancy to term, whether she wants to or not, will have her life impacted.

The man can make her carry it to term and then at the last minute, he can change his mind and abandon them because he really has no connection to it.

Thus leaving the woman to make all the choices anyway.

The mother must be the only one to make the choice.

 

[WDWHound]

There is no problem. Abortion is safe and legal in this country.

Again, you are ciompletely disregarding the concept that the baby may deserve rights. Laws can always be improved.

 

[chobie]

That makes sense. Now, if we devlope the technology that a baby can be raised viable outside the womb after 3 months gestation in the mother, would you consider that baby alive and would it be reasonable to aska mother to submit to surgery to save the baby in this case?

I don't know. Why don't you ask me when and if that ever comes to be.

 

[chobie]

Again, you are ciompletely disregarding the concept that the baby may deserve rights. Laws can always be improved.

I'm not disregarding the concept. I believe that the mother's rights come before an potential rights of the embryo.

 

[auntpolly]

The scientific community has never defined when life starts. They dont understand the criteria any more than you or I do.

Well, of course not - definitively - but we're going on the best information we have to date.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It's not just about physical attachment. Its about viability. If the fetus can be removed and survive by any means outside of the uterus it is viable an is a life and society can decide who will then care for the child. As long as its survival is based solely on the host's uterus then only one with the uterus being so used should be able to decide what happens. That's my argument.

Flip side--

What if a couple madly in love decide they together want to create a baby. The decision is mutual. The pregnancy test is positive--things are moving along for the first month after the test. Because of biology--the woman has to carry the baby for 9 months. She gets a super duper can't be refused opportunity--only--she can't be pregnant for it--she must go now it can't be refused....so she now wants to abort the baby. Shouldn't a father have some rights regarding this. (Obviously this is a whacko scenario...but just the same--the decision is mutual--only she for some reason changes her mind after the pregnancy has been established).

 

[totalia]

It's not just about physical attachment. Its about viability. If the fetus can be removed and survive by any means outside of the uterus it is viable an is a life and society can decide who will then care for the child. As long as its survival is based solely on the host's uterus then only one with the uterus being so used should be able to decide what happens. That's my argument.

Well put. I agree.

 

[auntpolly]

Again, you are ciompletely disregarding the concept that the baby may deserve rights. Laws can always be improved.

I'm going to try really hard not to sound like a smart-aleck here (smart aleck! I'm just full of the old lady expressions today;don't you think?) but you're the one who thinks the law needs improving - at least in this little microsm of the discussion - not us!

 

[chobie]

Flip side--

What if a couple madly in love decide they together want to create a baby. The decision is mutual. The pregnancy test is positive--things are moving along for the first month after the test. Because of biology--the woman has to carry the baby for 9 months. She gets a super duper can't be refused opportunity--only--she can't be pregnant for it--she must go now it can't be refused....so she now wants to abort the baby. Shouldn't a father have some rights regarding this. (Obviously this is a whacko scenario...but just the same--the decision is mutual--only she for some reason changes her mind after the pregnancy has been established).

No, because legally he is not a father until the child is born. Should a man who rapes a woman who then becomes pregnant be able to have a say in whether she has an abortion or not?

 

[WDWHound]

I don't know. Why don't you ask me when and if that ever comes to be.

If you don't mind, could you give this some thought and and respond with your thoughts. It goes to your viability standard. If you beleive that a baby is alive when it is vialble, and the baby develops the potential of viablity, than , the baby may rights that would prevent abortion. If not, than the standard must include more than viablility. The tech for this will be here VERY soon, so its something society needs to start thinking about.

 

[totalia]

That makes sense. Now, if we devlope the technology that a baby can be raised viable outside the womb after 3 months gestation in the mother, would you consider that baby alive and would it be reasonable to aska mother to submit to surgery to save the baby in this case?

You are making an assumption on something that is not currently possible by current scientific means. Thus the argument has no merit.

And yes, if a baby is viable outside the womb then it does not need the mother (after all it is viable and a baby then) and the mother can choose to keep it or have it adopted. What surgery are you talking about? For the mother or for the baby or what?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

No, because legally he is not a father until the child is born. Should a man who rapes a woman who then becomes pregnant be able to have a say in whether she has an abortion or not?

Rape is not a mutual decision.

 

[totalia]

I'm not disregarding the concept. I believe that the mother's rights come before an potential rights of the embryo.

I agree.

 

[chobie]

If you don't mind, could you give this some thought and and respond with your thoughts. It goes to your viability standard. If you beleive that a baby is alive when it is vialble, and the baby develops the potential of viablity, than , the baby may rights that would prevent abortion. If not, than the standard must include more than viablility. The tech for this will be here VERY soon, so its something society needs to start thinking about.

No society needs to start thinking about saving the millions of babies that are dying from preventable diseases and starvation first IMO.

 

[chobie]

Rape is not a mutual decision.

Good point. As to the mutual decision to have sex, the sperm donor does not have to gestate the baby and then should not have a say in the matter.

 

[totalia]

No, because legally he is not a father until the child is born. Should a man who rapes a woman who then becomes pregnant be able to have a say in whether she has an abortion or not?

I hadn't thought of that argument before. Well put.