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

Has anyone ever changed someone else's mind in an argument regarding abortion?

/EOT

Your proposal is interesting, but what if the woman and the doctor disagree with "health" being in danger? What if the a woman decided, when the foetus was 24 weeks old (and therefore within the second trimester but at an age which foetuses can be born naturally and survive) that her health was at risk, but no doctor agreed with her? Should a government not get involved?

Also, how comfortable are you with a law which allows someone to decided to abort a foetus in its first trimester because the foetus is handicapped? Or female? Or gay?

What it the foetus was found to be handicapped? Would you be happy to abort it in the third trimester? (This is the law in my jurisdiction.)

Not completely rhetorical wrote:

Has anyone ever changed someone else's mind in an argument regarding abortion?

/EOT

Yes, of course people sometimes change their mind on this. Norma NcCorvey (the original Jane Roe, in Roe v Wade) has changed her mind.

47 wrote:

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.

So in your analogy, an abortion would be someone/something coming in and catching me before I hit the ground and die. I would be quite pro abortion in your analogy.

All kidding aside, it's an interesting analogy but it is not equivalent to the question of human life and potential human beings. With current advancements in the field of genetic engineering, every cell in the human body with a nucleus is a potential human being. Given this knowledge, every haircut according to you could be considered a mass genocide since the potential for human life is there.

Also, when I'm in the process of falling off this cliff, I am still alive. I can communicate with the outside world. I could pull out my cell phone and send a text during this time. I am not dead. Who knows, I could be falling for quite some time. So your analogy further shows that the potential for human life (in the form of an embryo I'm assuming is your example) is not equivalent to human life, as much as we might wish it was.

Can I just ask a question to people?

Since Roe v Wade, there have been 50 million abortions approximately in the United States. Of those 50 million, 1.5% of the abortions have occurred after 6 months of pregnancy. That comes out to 750,000 abortions, or about 18,000 each year average.

My question to people: the 18,000 abortions that occur each year that are AFTER 6 months, are those murders? I'm only asking about that 1.5%.

So again, are 18,000 murdered each year after 6 months or are they still not lives at that point?

They are 18,000 people who were killed. It's not murder because the law doesn't define it as murder.

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

Your proposal is interesting, but what if the woman and the doctor disagree with "health" being in danger? What if the a woman decided, when the foetus was 24 weeks old (and therefore within the second trimester but at an age which foetuses can be born naturally and survive) that her health was at risk, but no doctor agreed with her? Should a government not get involved?

Also, how comfortable are you with a law which allows someone to decided to abort a foetus in its first trimester because the foetus is handicapped? Or female? Or gay?

What it the foetus was found to be handicapped? Would you be happy to abort it in the third trimester? (This is the law in my jurisdiction.)

If the woman and the doctor disagree with health being in danger, then the woman has a right to another opinion. If no doctor agrees with her, then her health is not in danger. Therefore, no abortion.

I am very comfortable with a law that allows a woman to have an abortion within the first trimester for whatever reason. I don't believe the reason for the abortion needs to be disclosed, and I don't think a government could possibly legislate against first trimester abortions just because it doesn't agree with the reasons for the abortion.

I am very close to someone who has a handicapped brother, and she loves him very much. That being said, she told me that if she was pregnant and the fetus was found to be mentally handicapped, she would have an abortion at whatever stage of pregnancy. Given her life experience, I respect her opinion more than my own.

Let's Think wrote:

I am very close to someone who has a handicapped brother, and she loves him very much. That being said, she told me that if she was pregnant and the fetus was found to be mentally handicapped, she would have an abortion at whatever stage of pregnancy. Given her life experience, I respect her opinion more than my own.

I respect the views of your friend, but I wonder what the views of her handicapped brother are? (My own handicapped brother isn't comfortable with there being one law for non-handicapped people and another law for handicapped people.)

Legal Answer wrote:

They are 18,000 people who were killed. It's not murder because the law doesn't define it as murder.

You are right, my mistake on the definition. Can I rephrase my question then and ask "are they 18,000 innocent lives killed each year?"

Mrs. M wrote:

First trimester seems reasonable...12 weeks - certainly a woman would know in that amount of time that is pregnant and has decided for an abortion. Seeing some of the previous pics posted of 11 week old fetii (sp?) I'm moved to argue 4-8 weeks should be a sufficient amount of time.

Aside from these logistics, no one has touched on the issue of the the mother's MENTAL state after an abortion takes place. I'd be curious to hear if any of the women on the board have gone through an abortion. I have two good friends who did in their teens and early 20s and it had a profound emotional impact on them. How then does this impact the fact that a non-human bunch of cells has formed a bond with its host?

I think having an abortion is a traumatic experience for most women, but I do not think that is a reason to ban it entirely. I think Scalia said something along these lines (although he said it WAS a reason to restrict it). Lots of things that will have long-term negative consequences are legal. As an adult, I can choose whether to partake in those activities or not, and I don't need the government telling me I'm not allowed to make the choice because I might regret it down the line.

I do have two friends who decided to have abortions, and it did affect them. But no more than my uncle's decision to take up smoking affected him, or my other friend's decision to drive while the roads were very icy and unsafe and he ended up causing an accident that maimed another person. All of these things have negative consequences, but all are perfectly legal.

Interestingly, although I have not had an abortion, I was nearly aborted. My mom had a lot of miscarriages before becoming pregnant with me and was ecstatic that she was finally going to have a baby. Then some initial tests came back that I was severely deformed, had all sorts of problems, and likely would live one very difficult and traumatic year full of suffering before I died. She told me she went home and laid in her bed and sobbed for three days straight, now facing this situation and decision that nobody should have to face. Ultimately, further testing revealed that I would be perfectly fine, and I am, but the agony I see on her face when she talks about those few weeks today reveals how difficult that decision would have been for her. She told me that if those initial tests were confirmed, she was going to abort me. And to be honest, as a grown, 23-year-old person, I am very comfortable with that decision, and I am glad that she would have had the courage to that.

Some people like to point out the inconsistency of pro-lifers by saying that they do not allow abortion as a form of birth control but do allow it in cases of rape.

Has it occurred to any of these people that perhaps although they would allow it in the case of rape, they still consider it morally wrong? I would. I wouldn't hold it at all against someone who was raped, but I would still think it was wrong to terminate the fetus. Sometimes you do something that you acknowledge is wrong knowing that there may be consequences.

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:I respect the views of your friend, but I wonder what the views of her handicapped brother are? (My own handicapped brother isn't comfortable with there being one law for non-handicapped people and another law for handicapped people.)

You're right, Coked Up Brit. There should be One Law and it should apply to all peoples equally because everyone is exactly the same. That's all it takes to make moral decision: just determine the absolute. It's easy to do because you can do it all in your head. We decide what we think is right and then apply it to everyone across the board, regardless of context.

This is silly boy reasoning, made famous by the King Silly Boy of them all, Immanuel Kant.

k girl wrote:

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:I respect the views of your friend, but I wonder what the views of her handicapped brother are? (My own handicapped brother isn't comfortable with there being one law for non-handicapped people and another law for handicapped people.)

You're right, Coked Up Brit. There should be One Law and it should apply to all peoples equally because everyone is exactly the same. That's all it takes to make moral decision: just determine the absolute. It's easy to do because you can do it all in your head. We decide what we think is right and then apply it to everyone across the board, regardless of context.

This is silly boy reasoning, made famous by the King Silly Boy of them all, Immanuel Kant.

I didn't say it was my view, I said it was my handicapped brother's view. He has down's syndrome, his name is Marcel. He doesn't claim that everyone is exactly the same. But he does think that everyone (including handicapped people) should be equal before the law.

Are you happy with the law allowing handicapped people to be aborted in the third trimester, but not non-handicapped people? And would you be happy discussing this with a handicapped person?

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:I didn't say it was my view, I said it was my handicapped brother's view. He has down's syndrome, his name is Marcel. He doesn't claim that everyone is exactly the same. But he does think that everyone (including handicapped people) should be equal before the law.

Are you happy with the law allowing handicapped people to be aborted in the third trimester, but not non-handicapped people? And would you be happy discussing this with a handicapped person?

You are the one using your brother to try to win an argument, not me. I'd be happy to speak with Marcel. But I wouldn't want to score point with him.

That's been my point all along. All these silly boys arguing about abortion as if the decision to abort were an intellectual problem that could be solved through the rejiggering of relationships between concepts. That's the primary intellectual problem -- and it keeps us from seeing the real social problem, which is how to empower women and their partners to make good decisions in difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances.

What if it can be determined that the fetus in the womb will grow to be a sociopath and commit murder? What if it can be determined that the fetus will be born with a severe physical defect that will cause the child to have an agonizing death before the age of 10? Obviously I'm not equating these conditions with being mentally handicapped, but you have to see that you can't just throw every situation under the same moral blanket. We as humans would be better off realizing that absolute morality is a myth, and we have to reason with each other to determine an outcome that minimizes human suffering.

A fetus that is determined to be mentally handicapped is obviously an extremely difficult situation, and I can't imagine the difficulty in making a decision either way with regards to abortion. However in this situation (as well as other extenuating situations), I believe that the right to choose is more moral than the alternative.

k girl wrote:

You are the one using your brother to try to win an argument, not me. I'd be happy to speak with Marcel. But I wouldn't want to score point with him.

That's been my point all along. All these silly boys arguing about abortion as if the decision to abort were an intellectual problem that could be solved through the rejiggering of relationships between concepts. That's the primary intellectual problem -- and it keeps us from seeing the real social problem, which is how to empower women and their partners to make good decisions in difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances.

I'm not characterising the debate as an intellectual problem. I'm characterising it primarily as a legal one. (Or course, there are social problems too, I agree with you on that.)

You haven't asnwered my question however: do you think handicapped people should be equal before the law with reagrds to abortion? This is simply a practical question about what the law should be.

This part seems really disturbing:

"In a typical late-term abortion, the fetus is dismembered in the uterus and then removed in pieces. That is more common than the procedure opponents call "partial-birth abortion," in which the fetus is partially extracted before being destroyed"

Why does the article call it a fetus and not a baby? De-humanizes it or something? Also says "before being destroyed." It's not like a house or something, it's a person!

Abortion is wrong. Hope you all realize you know this in the back of your mind.

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

You haven't asnwered my question however: do you think handicapped people should be equal before the law with reagrds to abortion?

Yes.

Abortion should be legal during the first semester and the reason a woman aborts should be between her, her husband/the fetus's father if he's around and invested, and her doctor.

I have a thought for all of you:

What right does anyone have bringing a life into the word without it's consent? I think there is good argument that you have right to expose a person to suffering of life without their approval. Thus, it is immoral to have children in the first place; you expose them to suffering without their agreement.

btw, this is real among philosophers so don;t be too quick to dismiss it.