Abortion thread

[auntpolly]

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).

Oh gee, that's such a tough question. I think we have to hope that such a coulple would consider each other's feelings and hope they do the right thing and resolve it themselves -- but in the end I think it should be the woman's decision. THere's some kind of legal precedent for this: isn't there?

 

[totalia]

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.

The potential for viability is not the same as being viable so the argument is moot.

 

[WDWHound]

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!

I am simply trying to make you see that there is more to some anti abortion arguments than religion, and that you may not be considering the whole problem. Your stance is soley based on the very important concept of the mothers rights, but there may be more to it than that.


For the record,. i am not ready to change the law, but I can see the day comiong when new tech brings up new issues and the law then may indeed be wrong. Arguning that the law is on your side has some merit, but laws have been proven wrong before. Sometimes laws need adjustment to deal with new tech and new social situations. In short, legal does not equal right, as the slaves in America at the beginning of our hisotry would have readily agreed.

 

[totalia]

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.

*nods* Man, I should just let you argue this. Your putting it better than I ever could.

 

[auntpolly]

The tech for this will be here VERY soon, so its something society needs to start thinking about.

Very soon? I'm not so sure - many people think that the way we keep very premature babies alive is immoral now. As I said earlier in this thread, there are miracle babies, for sure. But many doctors and ethicists are asking the question of how far we should be going to keep very premature babies alive.

 

[WDWHound]

The potential for viability is not the same as being viable so the argument is moot.

No, its not. Lets say the child is romved from the mother and is viabile for 10 minutes. After which a doctor takes over and its not longer the mothers responsibilty. As long as she has no further responsiblity, it isnt moot. Why are you dodging the question. There wont be a right or wrong answer. I just want to know how your see your viability standard wmight exist vs the mothers rights in this case.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by WDWHound
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totalia
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?

They have performed a surgery on baby in utero before. It was not old enough to live outside the womb. But the surgery saved it's life. It would take me a while to google it--I don't recall what the surgery was for...but the pic was shown with the baby grasping the surgeon's finger.

OKay--not as hard to search as I thougt---the surgery is called: maternal-fetal surgery for spina bifida and was a corrective procedure performed on mom and baby Samuel Armas at 21 weeks in utero--a little older than 3 months--maybe 4-5 months. Pic was submitted to USA Today via unprocessed film to ensure no digital manipulation. The 2003 update on him says that he walks with braces and did not have to endure the surgeries that are common for children with Spina Bifida and he is cognitively normal.

 

[chobie]

I am simply trying to make you see that there is more to some anti abortion arguments than religion, and that you may not be considering the whole problem. Your stance is soley based on the very important concept of the mothers rights, but there may be more to it than that.


For the record,. i am not ready to change the law, but I can see the day comiong when new tech brings up new issues and the law then may indeed be wrong. Arguning that the law is on your side has some merit, but laws have been proven wrong before. Sometimes laws need adjustment to deal with new tech and new social situations. In short, legal does not equal right, as the slaves in America at the beginning of our hisotry would have readily agreed.

Slavery? Okay let's talk about apples and oranges and red herrings why don't we?

 

[totalia]

I am simply trying to make you see that there is more to some anti abortion arguments than religion, and that you may not be considering the whole problem. Your stance is soley based on the very important concept of the mothers rights, but there may be more to it than that.


For the record,. i am not ready to change the law, but I can see the day comiong when new tech brings up new issues and the law then may indeed be wrong. Arguning that the law is on your side has some merit, but laws have been proven wrong before. Sometimes laws need adjustment to deal with new tech and new social situations. In short, legal does not equal right, as the slaves in America at the beginning of our hisotry would have readily agreed.

Soley on the mothers rights? The mothers rights need to be the overweighing factor here. It is HER life that is impacted most in the birth of the child. A man can shrug his shoulders and pretend it doesn't exist. A baby will not even be aware of having lived or died. Thus the mother's rights must come before all others.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Oh gee, that's such a tough question. I think we have to hope that such a coulple would consider each other's feelings and hope they do the right thing and resolve it themselves -- but in the end I think it should be the woman's decision. THere's some kind of legal precedent for this: isn't there?

Don't know--I haven't researched cases--hadn't really seen any news stories. If someone would like to share one they know of, please do so. I really thought I was posting a hypothetical situation.

 

[WDWHound]

Very soon? I'm not so sure - many people think that the way we keep very premature babies alive is immoral now. As I said earlier in this thread, there are miracle babies, for sure. But many doctors and ethicists are asking the question of how far we should be going to keep very premature babies alive.

Yup, and this is the heart of the question. I cant see preserving life to EVER be immoral assuming a that a reasonable healthy child is the result and no one elses rights are squashed.

 

[totalia]

No, its not. Lets say the child is romved from the mother and is viabile for 10 minutes. After which a doctor takes over and its not longer the mothers responsibilty. As long as she has no further responsiblity, it isnt moot. Why are you dodging the question. There wont be a right or wrong answer. I just want to know how your see your viability standard wmight exist vs the mothers rights in this case.

If the childs life is viable then the mother can no longer say whether the child can live or die now can she? Human rights apply to the living child. And it is the doctors choice. It should not be the mothers responsibility to say yes or no if she does not want it. Thats why we take children from bad homes.

Your trying to twist my words and it won't work.

 

[chobie]

Soley on the mothers rights? The mothers rights need to be the overweighing factor here. It is HER life that is impacted most in the birth of the child. A man can shrug his shoulders and pretend it doesn't exist. A baby will not even be aware of having lived or died. Thus the mother's rights must come before all others.

Well said. Don't desert this thread yet.

 

[totalia]

Well said. Don't desert this thread yet.

I won't unless my head gets any fuzzier. I've got a cold and only slept for about 3 hours last night. Body wants sleep but I'm not sure I could sleep even if I tried.

To tell the truth, I wasn't even sure what I posted made sense to anyone but me lol.

 

[auntpolly]

I am simply trying to make you see that there is more to some anti abortion arguments than religion, and that you may not be considering the whole problem. Your stance is soley based on the very important concept of the mothers rights, but there may be more to it than that.


For the record,. i am not ready to change the law, but I can see the day comiong when new tech brings up new issues and the law then may indeed be wrong. Arguning that the law is on your side has some merit, but laws have been proven wrong before. Sometimes laws need adjustment to deal with new tech and new social situations. In short, legal does not equal right, as the slaves in America at the beginning of our hisotry would have readily agreed.

Look, I don't usually use "the law is on my side" as a big part of my pro-choice argument -- but you've been using so many hypotheticals in yours. I guess I don't know what else to say. I know Chobie sounded flippant to you - but she has a point. When we all figure out the meaning of life and the essence of existance -- we'll have a really super duper good talk about this!

(Lisa Loves Pooh - sorry for stealing your "super duper". i can't seem to stop with the old fashioned expressions today!)

 

[WDWHound]

Soley on the mothers rights? The mothers rights need to be the overweighing factor here. It is HER life that is impacted most in the birth of the child. A man can shrug his shoulders and pretend it doesn't exist. A baby will not even be aware of having lived or died. Thus the mother's rights must come before all others.

Cool. Thanks for the honest answer. We differ in opinion here, but thats OK. I see any life as having rights, and no life's rights turmps anothers, but thats my view. the way I see it, a fully developed baby left on a curb to die after a normal birth may never be aware it existed either, but that would be considered murder. And technically, we don't know if either are aware they are here. I don't see why memory buys mom more rights, but I can respect the standard.

 

[totalia]

That's the problem isn't it? None of us knows the meaning of life and the essence of existance. We can make guesses or let religion dictate that for us but we don't actually know the answer.

 

[totalia]

Your welcome.

And yes the child left on the curb has rights because its no longer a parasite. It can exist on its own without being attached to the mother. Thus it has become a human being. So of course it has rights.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Very soon? I'm not so sure - many people think that the way we keep very premature babies alive is immoral now. As I said earlier in this thread, there are miracle babies, for sure. But many doctors and ethicists are asking the question of how far we should be going to keep very premature babies alive.

Isn't that a parental decision as guardian for a children. A woman who goes into pre-term labor that can't be stopped...it is the hospitals duty to catch and then care for that baby until it is healthy enough to go home. A responsible physician would weigh each case appropriately and advise the parents accordingly.

And so long as there are miracles out there, it cannot be proven that one child should not have the chance that others did.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Slavery? Okay let's talk about apples and oranges and red herrings why don't we?

OT help--

what's the definition of a red herring, please?

Thanks!