Let's Talk About: Abortion

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

So following the fetus viability argument if we advance technology to the point where the fetus is viable at implantation would you support outlawing all forms of abortion?

Or if you had a viability threshold for abortion would a women be able to demand being induced or get a c-section for a 22 week fetus. That seems like a reasonable compromise. However does the state want 600 additional premature babies a year with complications.

First of all I don't think this argument is fair.

Child support should be available (in large, generous amounts) to all mothers, especially those that are under privileged. In Canada at least child support payments have been increasing and even the CPC party is saying they want to keep it that way. At the end of the day there is a moral and economical benefit to children growing up in the best environment possible with the best chance to succeed. Are we not doing a pretty good job of that already?

As for your other points, I don't know the answer, but I do not that from a scientific & legal perspective the 'mother has full rights till birth' option doesn't hold much water.

I also find it strange that there hasn't been any talk of birth to adoption. Anyone involved in the adoption process knows that the system isn't exactly designed to help families who WANT to adopt children. A couple I know recently adopted a baby and its completely ridiculous the red tape required in order to make it happen.

Many people have come right out and said they are pro choice because why add more unnecessary children to the system. Some even talk about over population. What about the mother who does not want to go through the emotional toil of aborting their child but also knows they can't keep it? Why is there no talk about protection there? To me it is frightening how so many people have become so adamant about the right for the mother to have the abortion, but say nothing or care even less about the mother who is not getting the abortion, but does not want to keep the baby, as if THAT is not an option. Especially frightening when abortion is bandied about as a method for making sure mothers who can't take care of a child because of a variety of potential issues just get rid of it instead.

[rubecube]

Wouldn't it make more sense to just make revealing the sex of the fetus to parents illegal rather than putting restrictions on abortion. I mean if this is as widespread a problem as you seem to believe it is, that's the more prudent decision.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

So following the fetus viability argument if we advance technology to the point where the fetus is viable at implantation would you support outlawing all forms of abortion?

After reading your post again I think this is actually a fascinating question.

Say with the advancement of technology we can take the fetus from a mother at 6 weeks, and help advance it along in the 'pregnancy' through machines or whatever else until it is born. Do we then outlaw abortion? The legal argument of the fetus being able to survive without the mother and therefore being its own distinct life would almost apply, and at best because the mother has no interest in keeping the baby, should the state be able to take it from her?

The over population or whatever other stupid argument won't hold much water either, because at that time we are probably going to be a multi planetary species in desperate need of more people.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wouldn't it make more sense to just make revealing the sex of the fetus to parents illegal rather than putting restrictions on abortion. I mean if this is as widespread a problem as you seem to believe it is, that's the more prudent decision.

Well I can't imagine that would go over well with the millions of parents who cannot wait to find out what the gender is of their child before it is born.

[Weitz]

I’m pro-choice cause who the hell cares what I think about a females body and choice of what they do with it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't really understand the posts that talk about not drawing a line. There is no way to do that. If it's illegal, the line is at conception. If it's permissible until birth, the line is at birth. Obviously, it's currently set between those two points. No matter what you do, though, you're drawing the line somewhere.

The second part is that no matter what you do, you're drawing the line arbitrarily. Yes, drawing it at heartbeat is arbitrary. But so is drawing it at brain activity, or viability outside of the mother's body, unless you have some moral theory that states that those points are the difference between being a person and not. If you do, you run into some awkward issues, like degrees of brain activity and life support, and you still have to have a justification for why those points and not others.

At the end of the day, everyone seems to just pick a line at X weeks, and whatever justification you want to use is aimed at achieving a consensus along the lines of "yeah, that seems more or less reasonable". Which is fine, but no one should delude themselves into thinking that there is some moral magic to that point in a pregnancy where a switch flips. There's no satisfying way to tie the issue off and say, "we've got it, here's the clear answer", we're stuck with that level of uncertainty being something that we can live with.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Azure

I just find it really bizarre that there are people who can't see the common sense in creating a line in the sand without thinking everything will turn into a slippery slope and suddenly abortion will be completely illegal again.

From a completely legal perspective I can make a strong argument that at SOME POINT the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human being. The exact date is always thrown around, but most people will agree that it is sometime before full term is reached. And if we agree on that, from a legal perspective can you not say that the baby will at some point before it is born have the rights that we grant all our humans to not be killed? Especially not be killed by a state sanctioned law?

There will always be a debate over when a clump of cells is considered a "human being," but there is no debate in Canada about what constitutes a legal person. So, no... You can't make a legal argument. You can make a moral one, an ethical one, a scientific one, or a specious one, but there is no legal argument. And that's the way it needs to be - it needs to be based on a bright, unambiguous line -- and live birth is the brightest of bright lines. When we start trying to base clear legal principles on debatable moral/religious principles, we can no longer count on the stability of our law.

And don't think that the scientific "viability" or "consciousness" arguments are any different. There's still a moral/ethical foundation... What's the appropriate threshold? 50% viability? With our without medical heroics? Is it viable if there's high risk of severe birth defects? Etc.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

And that's the way it needs to be - it needs to be based on a bright, unambiguous line -- and live birth is the brightest of bright lines.

It's still arbitrary, though. Why should the moment of birth be the point to draw this bright line? What's the justification for that conclusion? It's always going to be a moral question with an answer that's based on moral principles, whether codified in law or not - you can't escape that.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's still arbitrary, though. Why should the moment of birth be the point to draw this bright line? What's the justification for that conclusion? It's always going to be a moral question with an answer that's based on moral principles, whether codified in law or not - you can't escape that.

This is the one event that is unambiguous, not subject to debate, and does not require the consent of the woman to evaluate. That's what makes it a bright line. Is that baby born? Yes/no. Every other qualifier is subject to either subjective judgement or the consent of the woman to determine. They aren't as bright.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

This is the one event that is unambiguous, not subject to debate, and does not require the consent of the woman to evaluate. That's what makes it a bright line. Is that baby born? Yes/no. Every other qualifier is subject to either subjective judgement or the consent of the woman to determine. They aren't as bright.

So again. 39 weeks you're okay with an abortion despite the fact they could remove thr baby via c section and it will likely be totally fine?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

What do you mean it's "unambiguous" and "not subject to debate"? Whether the baby has left the womb? I agree, that's unambiguous, but why is that the be all end all deciding factor for you? It's equally unambiguous whether or not there's a heartbeat, there's no subjective judgment involved at all, and most people don't seem to think that should be where the line is drawn. Why is it even relevant whether the baby's inside or outside of the womb? That is, what is the morally relevant factor you're relying on to differentiate the baby's status ten minutes after it's been born, as opposed to twenty minutes earlier, and why's it morally relevant?

EDIT: I'm pretty sure this is all just a product of your moral intuitions about what's okay and what's not. That or ex post facto justifications for a place you want to be able to stand.

[PsYcNeT]

Well the current abortion laws being passed consider inside/outside relevant.

IVF embryos outside the womb are not subject to the "it's alive" judgements.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yes, just like everyone who thinks about this topic, the laws have to draw the line somewhere, too. The point is that the line is arbitrary. As I said, there's no magic to it. It's just whatever we can manage to get agreement on as a society, basically.

[Peanut]

Is there any women in this thread? Literally, any?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Is there any women in this thread? Literally, any?

Call me crazy but I feel like both genders can debate the merits/downsides of any idea.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cain

Call me crazy but I feel like both genders can debate the merits/downsides of any idea.

Yes, which is why I would love to hear from some women.

[Peanut]

If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one. The end.

[Peanut]

——

[FiftyBelow]

While a difficult topic to discuss, it's an important one. This issue has a tendency to divide people but I'm hoping that this thread will at least be a place where those with different views can understand one another and discuss respectfully. Thank you to the individuals thus far who have done so.

From the outset, I'll state that my position is one that is staunchly pro-life. I approach this issue ultimately from a human rights perspective. Scientifically speaking, human life begins at conception. At this point, the embryo--while not a fully grown human being--is a unique individual with its own unique DNA. If undisturbed, the embryo possesses all the genetic material necessary to move through the stages of development and eventually into a fully developed human. However, regardless of the stage of development, after conception, there is a human life that is present in the womb.

As such, I see the abortion issue as one that does not only affect the mother but also the life inside the womb. Recognizing that the life in the womb is human, I believe that it deserves full protection. All humans have a right to life. When addressing any human rights issue, I believe this is always the starting point for no other rights can follow if one does not have a right to life.

Many pro-choicers present a false dichotomy of the rights of the baby vs the rights of the mother. Why can't we value both? I agree with many pro-choicers that our society does not do a good job of supporting women through pregnancies. I sympathize with those who have faced the prospect of their life plans being turned upside down or their honest concerns at the quality of life that the child might face. These are important concerns and ones that nobody takes lightly. However, are they enough to justify the killing of a life? The killing of the life in the womb does not address the direct causes of lack of support, poverty, rape etc, it merely creates another victim. Instead of viewing abortions as solutions to these problems, why not foster a culture that values every life and one that strives to better support women, fights against poverty, fights rape etc?

[driveway]

My 70-year-old, biology-teacher father posted this to Facebook today:

"With all the anti-abortion laws being passed by states south of the border I want to correct a misconception that is prevalent in almost all the arguments both for and against. That is "when does life begin?" The answer is: several billion years ago, and we still don't know how.

Many of my ex students will remember the second part of the modern cell theory: all cells arise from pre-existing cells. Any new individual is the continuation of the lives of its parents (or parent in the case of asexual reproduction). Eggs and sperm are living cells, as is the zygote that their fusion can produce. There is no "gap".

Whether that zygote will go on to produce a healthy baby 9 months later is not guaranteed. Turning one diploid cell into a viable infant made up of about 26,000,000,000 vastly different cells is an amazingly complex process that often goes wrong.

Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%.

Think about that - 30% to 50% of all conceptions end in the death of the baby without any active interventions. For those that believe that babies are a gift from God, your God is the greatest abortionist ever."