The ethics really of a potentially viable life is still whether that overrides a woman’s choice not to have a medical procedure forced upon her to extract it and put it in some sort of incubator. How is that really any better than making sperm producing men get a vasectomy, I am not sure.
This is just a terrible argument. The argument that a fetus is a living thing deserving of protection is independent in any requirement for a creator.
Also the fact that biologically the body aborts non-viable pregnancies is also irrelevant.
The discussion around abortion has always been the ethics of a potentially viable life so the fact that the body deals with non-viable life in one way does not matter.
It's not an argument at all, the argument is, and always has been that all of modern society is a series of choices as to who lives and who dies in order for convenience, you want to be pro life then ban all cars, we can live without them, they are just there for convenience and they kill hundreds of thousands, guns, cigerettes, booze, pollution, its all got to go as it all kills people.
The reality is though we are only pro life when it is a woman that has to suffer the consequences, we are never pro life when it rains on mens parades
While I know this is a sensitive topic, I would like to ask a genuine question as it's something I am wrestling with myself. I suspect it may not be a ground breaking question for many, but coming from a very religious background, I'm trying to reason about abortion keeping the idea that the fetus (at some point in the pregnancy) is a living person at the forefront.
I don't think anyone will be able to answer the question of when life really begins for a fetus. So instead I'm trying to frame the question differently, though maybe it's really the same thing?:
Does the fetus have rights at all at any time before birth? And if so, are those rights always secondary to the mother's?
My thinking right now is that the answer should be yes to both questions.
Regarding the first part of the question- I think there is general agreement that very late-stage abortions that are not due to medical/health issues (for either fetus or mother) are not supported. Usually the scenario is met with the idea that "it would never happen", and I tend to agree. But it infers that the late-stage fetus is in some way an actual individual with some semblance of rights. Otherwise, would you support a late-stage abortion for any reason, regardless of how superficial?
Regarding the second part of the question, my thinking is that there is general agreement that, should the pregnancy (at whatever stage) be life-threatening to the mother, and the only way to preserve the mother's life is abortion, then abortion is deemed acceptable. However, if we've established from the first the question that, at some point, the fetus is a person with rights, then the only logical conclusion is that the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. Consider the opposite scenario - where the fetus (during the stage when it has rights) has its life in danger, and the only way to preserve the fetus is to kill the mother (maybe perform surgery that, because of the mother's condition, would kill her). Would the fetus's life ever be preserved in such a scenario without the mother's consent?
Does this reasoning make sense? I'm interest to hear other perspectives.
I think this reasoning makes a lot of sense.
I think first you start with the two extremes.
The fetus has all the rights and abortion is never allowed under any circumstances OR the woman has all the rights and can abort a fetus at any stage.
If those are your starting points, then you slowly begin to have exceptions to either of these rules. On one side we allow abortion for situations life threatening to the mother and on the other side, do not allow abortion for really late-term pregnancies. I think on these we all agree and you mentioned these two examples on your post.
But then you get into other vague areas. Rape is one. A woman who is raped should be able to decide to abort. Is this correct? Because there is no risk to the fetus or mother, it's a choice. Does the fetus have a say? Or if it's illegal, does the mother have a say?
Or conditions. At 10 weeks people test for conditions such as Down Syndrome and when they found out, they don't want to have the baby. Does the fetus have a say to come into the world with down syndrome, or if it's illegal, does the mother have a say?
Or gender. Also at 10 weeks people test for gender (same test as above). If they find out it's a girl for example, they don't want to have the baby. Does the fetus have a say to come into the world as a girl, or if it's illegal, does the mother have a say?
Or simply the women doesn't want the baby. Does the fetus have a say to come into the world as a baby, or if it's illegal, does the mother have a say?
So taking the extremes out of it, these are the choices that society makes.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 06-26-2022 at 09:16 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
Does the fetus have rights at all at any time before birth? And if so, are those rights always secondary to the mother's?
In nature, a mother with a dead fetus can conceive again. A fetus with no mother is doomed. Modern science can change that a bit, but for the most part a fertile woman simply has more societal value (and not just more consistent recognition of personhood).
Saw on TV that GOP state senate candidate Jeann Lugo for Rhode Island turned himself into police after he punched his democrat opponent during her Roe rally. What in the actual f is going on down there? Oh, I I almost forgot, you won't be surprised but he's a cop lol!
The Following User Says Thank You to activeStick For This Useful Post:
So what you are saying is that give enough time and scientific advancement abortion should be made illegal?
My supposition is that it’s only a matter of time before we can grow a baby in an artificial womb and transfer fertilized eggs into such a womb. Basing your ethics on the science of the day seems shortsighted.
Or perhaps it means that until about 12 years no fetus is viable outside the womb without intervention.
Given enough time and advancement. Abortion should be made unnecessary.
If according to Republicans life begins at conception, shouldn't child welfare payments begin 9 months earlier?
According to science it starts at conception, when a complete and unique human genetic structure is created. The debate over when Life Starts is 100% politics. There is no mammalian species where being a fetus is not considered part of the life cycle.
According to science it starts at conception, when a complete and unique human genetic structure is created. The debate over when Life Starts is 100% politics. There is no mammalian species where being a fetus is not considered part of the life cycle.
Have you talked with Whales to confirm they feel this way?
According to science it starts at conception, when a complete and unique human genetic structure is created. The debate over when Life Starts is 100% politics. There is no mammalian species where being a fetus is not considered part of the life cycle.
Don't try to use science to make your point, you've got it wrong.
Quote:
Scott Gilbert was walking through the halls of Swarthmore when he saw the poster, from a campus religious group: “Philosophers and theologians have argued for centuries about when personhood begins,” it read. “But scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization.” What troubled Gilbert, who is a developmental biologist, was the assertion that “scientists know.” “I couldn’t say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists don’t have a consensus,” he says.
When life begins is, of course, the central disagreement that fuels the controversy over abortion. Attacks on abortion rights are now more veiled and indirect---like secret videos pointing to Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue donations, or state legislation that makes operating abortion clinics so onerous they have to shut down. But make no mistake, the ultimate question is, when does a fetus become a person---at fertilization, at birth, or somewhere in between?
Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.
Quote:
Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves. As a doctor, Horvath-Cosper says, “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”
Quote:
Still, setting an absolute cutoff for fetal viability is impossible. “It depends on how you define it. Is it some babies survive? Half survive? Or most babies survive?” Bell says. At 22 weeks, many of the babies that survive end up with permanent health problems or disabilities.
"Personhood" is not "life", these are different terms with different meanings, if you want to get into those little scientific semantics
Presumably you didn't bother to click the link and read the article. But maybe you should just re-read the first couple sentences to start, since that was a quote form a religious group. Anyway, the "personhood" word wasn't the point of the article. You can tell by how the second paragraph starts. Work on your reading comprehension.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I think that’s why abortion is only ethical if you place body autonomy as the governing right. If bodily autonomy isn’t the governing right then every egg left unfertilized is murder. All ejaculate not intended for procreation is child abandonment.
GGG out here acting like we haven’t all memorized Legally Blonde.
Last edited by OptimalTates; 06-27-2022 at 09:05 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to OptimalTates For This Useful Post:
Whatever birth control technology that exists won’t be universally used and won’t be universally effective.
People are going to #### without protection.
You didn’t answer the uncomfortable question of
Do you believe abortion timeframes should be continually be restricted until it is banned when zygotes are viable in artificial wombs.
It’s not an uncomfortable question. Some of you are obsessed with these hypotheticals that ultimately don’t mean anything to where we’re at today.
Given that minimum weeks for viability seems to drop about 1 week every decade, I’m sure there’s more pressing and intelligent things to discuss that the morality of abortion long after we’re all dead.
It’s not an uncomfortable question. Some of you are obsessed with these hypotheticals that ultimately don’t mean anything to where we’re at today.
Given that minimum weeks for viability seems to drop about 1 week every decade, I’m sure there’s more pressing and intelligent things to discuss that the morality of abortion long after we’re all dead.
You'd have to define viability. Viability on their own or equipping NICUs to the teeth? I don't think the viability of babies on their own have changed drastically over the years. I've mentioned before, lungs are the last thing to develop.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
You'd have to define viability. Viability on their own or equipping NICUs to the teeth? I don't think the viability of babies on their own have changed drastically over the years. I've mentioned before, lungs are the last thing to develop.
OBVIOUSLY talking about “with medical intervention.”
Human fetuses haven’t just evolved greater survival traits over the last 30 years. Come on Girly lol.
