This is appalling....and nauseating..and back to appalling

k girl wrote:

Yet again, a bunch of dudes discussing what a woman should do with her body and using big and meaningless words like "conception" "the beginning of human life" and "rights" hoping that somehow these abstract concepts will justify their meddling.

Somewhere a woman is pregnant and scared and faced with a tremendous and tragic decision. She can't know what is best in advance. And yet, she has to decide. Either way she decides, she will have regrets. That's the reality of the situation, and it can't be taken away by argument and appeals to "free choice" or a fetus' "rights."

You guys can keep watching your porn and discussing the origin of human life. It's cool by me if you get off on it. Just don't pretend your bullshit arguments have anything to do with a woman's decision.

Actually there are a bunch of women (including the OP) also discussing this. We shouldn't cast this as a men discuss / women decide dichotomy.

Men are after all involved inevitably in the decisions and processes around abortion. Men are involved in conceiving. Men are involved in raping. Men are involved in legislating. Men are often consulted by the mother of their children before abortions on their views. Men are involved in paying for kids. Men are involved in doing the abortion operation. Men sometimes persuade women to have abortions. Men sometimes get aborted.

The idea that men should somehow get their hands off this discussion and decision and issues around it is pretty odd.

Touchy subject, but.. Why shouldn't the father have a say? I don't think he has a right to make the woman get an abortion, but he should have the right to make her keep the baby if he is willing to take care of it. If men should not have a say in the matter, then they should not be expected to raise their children, and/or pay child support, etc. either. (I'm a woman).

another average american wrote:

That's exactly my point! It's impossible to know when the fetus becomes "human." Clearly, in my first picture, it is not what most people would call human. In my last picture, it is. Where does the transition happen? I don't know, and I don't think anybody can.

I do understand the position that since we can't possibly know when the transition happens, the only safe way to proceed is to consider the blastula human. I would completely agree with this if the mother weren't involved. As it is, we're attempting to balance the right to live of a human already living with the rights of a fetus to continue developing.

I think it's a very difficult and complicated issue, and there are no easy or blanket answers.

I don't think it's nearly as difficult as you make it out to be. You conceded that the only consistent position is to consider it human at conception. Therefore, it is not weighing the rights of a human against a fetus, it is weighing the rights of one human against another human. Therefore, the blastula has just as many rights as the woman, and no one person's rights out weigh another's, so the child must be protected unless it is a case of self-defense where the mother must abort in order to live. That should be up to the mother in that case.

However, I will say this: I do not believe the federal government has any position in determining this. It should be left up to the states to decide on a law, but ultimately that is my moral belief on the topic.

Another Average American,

The question you raise about cases in which the life of the foetus (UK spelling) put the mother's life at risk are particularly interesting.

They are interesting because they are (i) both a small minority of cases, thankfully; but (ii) a large enough number of cases for this to be a real issue which deserves real attention. The best example is the case of an eptopic pregancy in which the fetus doesn't implant in the uterus (as would happen in a normal pregancy) but implants in the fallopian tubes and continues to grow and develop there, where there is no space for it.

In this case (except extremely rarely) there is almost no chance of the fetus ultimately being born alive. There is also a strong risk that the fetus, if it continues to grow and develop, will cause internal bleeding to the mother which could lead to her death.

If we admit that both the foetus and the mother are human life, how can we resolve this moral dilemma? (I prefer to call the foetus a "human life", it is clearly not dead and clearly is human.) The two most likely outcomes are:

(1) Foetus is aborted and foetus dies, while mother lives; or

(2) Foetus is not aborted and mother ends up dying and foetus dies too.

In this case my view (accepting the fact that the foetus is a human life) is that (1) is the better solution. I think it can be justified too, without compromising any absolutes about the right to life. Essentially an operation is performed in order to save the mother's life. An unwelcome yet inevitable consequence of this operation, is that the foetus dies.

I don't think that there is anyone out there who is arguing that abortions should not be allowed in the case of eptopic pregnancies (and equivalent cases). But by all means prove me wrong if you no of people who are arguing against this.

Yeah, the father should have a say, but only insofar as is willing to enter in the actuality and difficulty and particularity and consequences and sadness of the situation instead of dreaming about abstract nonsense like the origin of conception and the right of the fetus and the difference between moral and legal obligation. Which is what most of the posters here have been doing, silly boys that they are--and women sometimes can act like silly boys.

This is really fairly simple.

If you are pro choice, you do not believe that the fetus is a human being until it exits the womb. (well, if you believe it IS a human, and still believe abortion is ok, then that is really twisted, because you are admitting murder is ok). Thus, abortion is ok, because it is not a separate life.

If you are pro life, you believe that the fetus is a human being from conception (well, as previously said, that is the only consistent position) and therefore believe abortion is murder, because you believe it is a separate human being.

Now, no one is going to change their opinion after this thread, are they? I have made up my mind about the issue, and am not going to change it.

iPad wrote:I have made up my mind about the issue, and am not going to change it.

Man or woman? Who knows?

Silly boy? Definitely.

I think that's exactly right.

Nobody has any trouble with the law that if a man has sex with a woman he's always responsible for paying to support any child conceived until the age of 18 and has no say over whether a woman has an abortion or not.

Yet with a woman, the law says that even if a woman voluntarily has sex and conceives, she doesn't have to live with the consequences and can get an abortion to avoid the responsibility of raising a child.

Obviously, a man doesn't have to carry a baby for 9 months, but what's so horrible with saying that if a woman voluntarily has sex she has to live with the consequences of it.

Why shouldn't a man who offers to pay for a woman's abortion be relieved of parental responsibilities -- after all, he's just getting a chance to change his mind like a woman does when she has an abortion.

another average american wrote:

Because I don't believe that this is a human life:

http://image.wistatutor.com/content/feed/tvcs/stage1.JPG

I do believe that this is a human life:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/animal_images/human_baby_happy.jpg

I do not consider the first to be a human life deserving of all the rights of a human. I do consider the second to be a human life deserving of all such rights.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think it's impossible to say where exactly the distinction between a human being and a pending human being is. Scientifically and morally.

You might not want to give a scientific or moral answer, but unfortunately for you, legislators have to make laws on circumstances in which abortion is legal or not. And you as a voter and human being with a brain have a responsibility to engage the political process around which such laws come into being.

You have to pin your colours (UK spelling again, sorry) to the mast and say what you think the law should be. Should the immediately fertilised egg have a right to life? How about the 12 week feotus? Or the 24 week feotus? Or the 37 week foetus? Or the premature baby, born at just 32 weeks, in the incubator? Or the 5 month year old baby?

To say that you don't have a moral or a scientific answer is being somewhat intellectually cowardly. For as you know, laws do need to be made.

iPad wrote:

This is really fairly simple.

If you are pro choice, you do not believe that the fetus is a human being until it exits the womb. (well, if you believe it IS a human, and still believe abortion is ok, then that is really twisted, because you are admitting murder is ok). Thus, abortion is ok, because it is not a separate life.

If you are pro life, you believe that the fetus is a human being from conception (well, as previously said, that is the only consistent position) and therefore believe abortion is murder, because you believe it is a separate human being.

Now, no one is going to change their opinion after this thread, are they? I have made up my mind about the issue, and am not going to change it.

In your idealistic utopia, perhaps it is that simple. In the real world it is not. Would you have supported the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW II? It ended the war quickly, but at an enormous cost to innocent human life. Some would argue that it achieved a greater good, some would argue that it was wrong regardless of the fact that it most likely saved tens of thousands of American lives. There is a moral shade of gray, and that's just how these issues are. There is nothing black and white about abortion, and to assert so shows an unwillingness to consider the shortcomings of your own position.

Yes laws do need to be made, and they have been made. The law however does not necessarily represent an absolute moral judgement on the issue. It is not saying something is morally right or reprehensible, it is simply saying that it is legal. Something being legal does not been that it is morally correct, I don't know how many times this must be said. Smoking marijuana in this country is illegal, but I would hardly say it's immoral (jaywalking for that matter too).

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:To say that you don't have a moral or a scientific answer is being somewhat intellectually cowardly.

Intellectual courage has almost nothing to do with having answers. You obviously have done very little scientific or moral inquiry.

Intellectual courage has a lot more to do with your ears than with petty clinging to the concepts floating around in your little yellow brain.

Let's Think wrote:

Yes laws do need to be made, and they have been made. The law however does not necessarily represent an absolute moral judgement on the issue. It is not saying something is morally right or reprehensible, it is simply saying that it is legal. Something being legal does not been that it is morally correct, I don't know how many times this must be said. Smoking marijuana in this country is illegal, but I would hardly say it's immoral (jaywalking for that matter too).

Agreed. I'm not for a moment confusing legality with morality. Sometimes "legal" and "moral" coincide and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they should coincide and sometimes they shouldn't.

Are you happy with the abortion law as it currently stands in your jurisdiction?

k girl wrote:

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:To say that you don't have a moral or a scientific answer is being somewhat intellectually cowardly.

Intellectual courage has almost nothing to do with having answers. You obviously have done very little scientific or moral inquiry.

Intellectual courage has a lot more to do with your ears than with petty clinging to the concepts floating around in your little yellow brain.

What do you mean "has more to do with your ears"? Why are you saying "I an pettily clinging to concepts"? I'm trying to engage with you.

I'm making the point that because laws have to be made and enforced (I assume you'll agree with me) we can't avoid a discussion of what is life and what rights and responsibilities there should be. What do you think the law should be? And why?

To me, a fertilized egg is not a human being in any meaningful sense of the word, while a fetus/baby an hour before birth is as much a human being as a baby an hour after birth. At some point in between, what starts out as not-a-human-being becomes a human being.

So, the question is where to draw the line. Because it's a gradual transition, there's no definite time to draw the line between not-a-human being and human being from a biological standpoint. Since biology doesn't give a definite answer, the law needs to pick an approximately reasonable point. To give an analogy, most 10 year olds are not competent to vote, sign contracts, serve on a jury, etc., while most 25 year olds are. So the law picks an approximately reasonable point to draw the line between being a child and being an adult at 18 (or thereabouts, depending on the issue and jurisdiction). The same thing should be done with abortion.

Personally, I think the line should be 12 weeks. Before 12 weeks, abortion should be legal, and after 12 weeks it should be illegal. Given what we now know about development in the womb a 12 week old fetus has most of the characteristics that make us say something is human. But I acknowledge that 12 weeks is arbitrary, and the dividing line could be something else, but I definitely think some sort of dividing line should be chosen that is well before 9 months or actual birth.

The abortion law as it currently stands in my jurisdiction is that abortions are legal through the 2nd trimester. I personally believe that abortions should definitely be legal through the 1st trimester in any circumstance (over 90% of abortions are conducted before 12 weeks). After the 1st trimester, I would tend to think that abortion should only be performed in the cases that involve threat to a woman's life, rape/incest, etc. So no, I am not completely happy with the abortion law as it currently stands. But that is just my personal opinion. People who have much more knowledge and experience with the subject have drawn the line at the end of the 2nd trimester.

I'm sorry, when did a baby inside of you become part of your own body?

Kthnxbye.

I believe I stated in a previous post that I am pro-choice and also for some restrictions on abortion.

In my jurisdiction abortion is legal through the second trimester. I agree with Lets Think that I would also be okay with abortion being legal in any circumstance through the first trimester, and then after that only in when the life or health of the mother is in danger. But I believe it is up to the doctor and the woman to decide what "life and health" is, not the government.

For the record, I don't think asserting that there's no concrete moral or scientific answer is intellectually cowardly at all. It's recognizing that any law that we make will be based on our best attempts to muddle through this complex issue, not on a clear-cut moral or scientific foundation, as other people in this thread have suggested possible.

With regard to your point, I like to make this analogy:

If you're standing at the top of a cliff, there is the potential for you to die by jumping off and hitting the ground, but you haven't jumped yet.

If you've just jumped off that cliff, there is again the potential that you will die and hit the ground, but at this point it's pretty much certain you're going to die.