Abortion? The final conclusions?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I know this dead horse has been beat over and over by now but given the recent elections in America and the topics of Abortion in the news, I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on Abortion and to see some different opinions on the facts behind them. I thought a fresh new thread with a clear and precise poll would be the best way to do it.

I will state my beliefs..

I believe that abortion should be legal for anyone within the first 2 trimesters and legal for those parents who's lives are in danger if it's in the 3rd trimester. I do not believe that on demand abortions should be allowed for babies in the 3rd trimesters. Scientific studies have shown that babies are able to feel pain by the 3rd trimester and therefore I believe that is a good line to draw.


Everyone else discuss their opinions on this matter. Please try to keep this thread to the point with only the facts and no trifling.

 

[toddjh]

I don't believe that "feeling pain" is a meaningful criterion here. Cattle can feel pain but we have no problem grinding them up for hamburgers.

The issue is at what point, if any, a fetus should be regarded as a human being, and what criteria we use to make that determination. It's a difficult question to answer.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Dustin, on this issue "final conclusion" is hardly a thought that comes to mind.

DR

 

[mumchup]

...I believe that abortion should be legal for anyone within the first 2 trimesters and legal for those parents who's lives are in danger if it's in the 3rd trimester. I do not believe that on demand abortions should be allowed for babies in the 3rd trimesters. Scientific studies have shown that babies are able to feel pain by the 3rd trimester and therefore I believe that is a good line to draw.

I pretty much agree with this. Except that I feel that a better reason to severely restrict 3rd trimester abortions is that a premature baby born during the third trimester is likely to survive.

 

[King of the Americas]

AFTER the fetus...

...can exist outside of the host's womb without HER specific care, then it is deserving of 'individual rights'.

Until that point, the fetus is nothing more than a parasite existing off of a willing and able host.

Thus the the criminality of an abortion lies solely in technology's ability to incubate the pre-mature fetus outside of the mother's womb.

I believe that rights are or should be congruent with ability. We don't give 3 year olds keys to cars, planes, or trains. We don't allow 16 year olds to vote, and we don't allow 19 year olds to drink.

Why some would give or want to endow 'individual' status upon something that isn't is beyond me...

 

[Iamme]

I still try to figure out why there is such a fuss over this from people who are so against abortion. They say that the abortionist is killing human life. Obviously they must believe life is sacred. Yet, out of one side of their mouths they may claim that the world already has too many people. Yet at the same time, are so bent against abortion. Also, these very people may relish war and killing of souls that they have never met before!

If God thinks life is sacred, then why would he allow people who are already born and productive keepers of the earth, (heck...even missionaries see early deaths at times) to be snuffed out by some catastrphe...yet, we think he will get angry if we snuff out a life that is not yet born and is incapable of communication or understanding...that this life- in- the- making is more sacred than the life that is already walking the earth?

For me, based on what I just said...I can't get too upset knowing someone aborted a baby-in-the-making when it is some early forming glob. And I think many other people would hold this view. But it becomes more and more troubling to decide as the baby develops further in the womb. What happens now is we have this real problem in deciding if snuffing out the glob is okay...then at what point is it not okay? Can we define an hour and minute to when it be acceptable to abort and to when it is not? Impossible. Yet, when the baby exits the birth canal and can breathe on it's own, it is very easy to define that moment.

So then the answer to abortion can only sound simple if it becomes an "either/ or" thing. Either you can't abort at all, or, you can abort right up until birth.

But being human as we all are...I think most of us would be squeamish observing a fetus that is fully developed, ready to be born, being sucked out of it's womb. First off, this would seem gross to us. But should 'gross' be an influence on us? Or should there be a better motivation for us not to do it simply because it seems gross?

I think the reason there are those that think it is okay to abort up until the 3rd trimester feel that abortion is okay, and are not all hung up on the ethics of it based on the fact that it appears in this world, that life has no sanctity. Yet, because of the influence upon us over "gross" and the fact the you know the fetus could be made viable, one has to maybe...compromise. It is a good compromise to perhaps draw the line at the third trimester.

I look at it this way: It be the mothers choice for about 6 months to decide. After that, it is kind of her fault if she can't decide by then. She has had 6 months to decide, and would have nobody to blame but herself, if she was made to carry to term, if she for some reason, suddenly decided against it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Can we define an hour and minute to when it be acceptable to abort and to when it is not? Impossible. Yet, when the baby exits the birth canal and can breathe on it's own, it is very easy to define that moment.

I don't think it's impossible to draw a fuzzy line where the doctor makes the final decision of if it's too late to abort or not. There should be some panel of experts to view all cases that seemingly break the rules. If a doctor thinks a person should have an abortion a week into the 3rd trimester then he should defend his actions to a panel of experts and explain his decision.

So then the answer to abortion can only sound simple if it becomes an "either/ or" thing. Either you can't abort at all, or, you can abort right up until birth.

That's like saying it's 'imposible' to decide when killing someone else is ok or is not ok. Is it ok to kill someone else? When is it ok? Self defence? Our society has specific rules for this and does not punish people for self defence. So it's not "either killing is prohibited or it's not". There are instances when it's justified. I.E. self defence.

But being human as we all are...I think most of us would be squeamish observing a fetus that is fully developed, ready to be born, being sucked out of it's womb. First off, this would seem gross to us. But should 'gross' be an influence on us? Or should there be a better motivation for us not to do it simply because it seems gross?

Has nothing to do with being "gross".

I look at it this way: It be the mothers choice for about 6 months to decide. After that, it is kind of her fault if she can't decide by then. She has had 6 months to decide, and would have nobody to blame but herself, if she was made to carry to term, if she for some reason, suddenly decided against it.

Yes.

 

[This Guy]

As a male, I'll never have to decide if I should have an abortion. Having no true idea what it's like to carry a baby, I don't feel I have the right to decide for someone that is pregnant.

That being said, I think the 2nd trimester is a fair call.

I basically believe that even an unborn baby is a human life. I won't argue time scales/development points. The thought of ending that life is repulsive to me. But again, I'll never have to make that call for myself.

Worse case, I may have to help my daughter, or someone else make that call. Should that happen I would try to hide my emotional ties to the issue, and try to guide them to the choice that they can best live with.

 

[fuelair]

I know this dead horse has been beat over and over by now but given the recent elections in America and the topics of Abortion in the news, I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on Abortion and to see some different opinions on the facts behind them. I thought a fresh new thread with a clear and precise poll would be the best way to do it.

I will state my beliefs..

I believe that abortion should be legal for anyone within the first 2 trimesters and legal for those parents who's lives are in danger if it's in the 3rd trimester. I do not believe that on demand abortions should be allowed for babies in the 3rd trimesters. Scientific studies have shown that babies are able to feel pain by the 3rd trimester and therefore I believe that is a good line to draw.


Everyone else discuss their opinions on this matter. Please try to keep this thread to the point with only the facts and no trifling.

the fact is, my opinion is not listed above. Abortion at any point without restriction.

 

[Rufo]

the fact is, my opinion is not listed above. Abortion at any point without restriction.

Would that not be the uppermost, "It should always be allowed"?

 

[steverino]

Abort this, and see below.

 

[steverino]

San Francisco femanists screamed bloody "double-murder" at Scott Peterson. I think by the third trimester we are dealing with a child inside mommy's tummy.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'd like to see the people defend their claims that Abortion should be allowed just weeks before pregnancy while the baby is able to live outside of the womb.

 

[Pardalis]

I chose "1st trimester health exceptions permitting".

I understand that women should have the right to decide what happens to their body, but I am also against abortion ideologically. I think to allow it only for the first trimestre is as far as I'll go.

 

[AWPrime]

I'd like to see the people defend their claims that Abortion should be allowed just weeks before pregnancy while the baby is able to live outside of the womb.

Oke, I voted "It should always be allowed".

1. It is still a part of the womans body.
2. No fuzzy line

 

[fuelair]

At the risk of repeating myself from a similar thread, I came to this belief when I was in the fifth grade (that I was totally pro-abortion). Nobody had ever talked to me about the subject (that would be ca.1957 - think about it) but I had read about it (fiction I was not known to have access to). Within three years of that I had enough data to know homosexuals did not trouble me though some details of their lives were still unclear.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

1. It is still a part of the womans body.

And a simese twin is also part of one of the twins bodies. Does that give one twin the right to kill the other?

The baby being "part of the womans body" means nothing if the baby could survive outside of the womans body. Literally cutting a baby up that could easily survive outside of the womb is murder. I'm against calling a fetus a "baby" when it can't feel or think and looks like some rodent. But an actuall baby that's a few weeks away from being delivered is murder. Pure and simple. It's only "Part of the Body" when it relies on the host's body to survive. If it could (if removed) survive outside of the mothers womb without technological help then it's an individual now and no longer a "body part".

2. No fuzzy line

Why?

 

[AWPrime]

And a simese twin is also part of one of the twins bodies. Does that give one twin the right to kill the other?

Well they are equal persons. That isn't the same as with a person to be and a woman.

Pure and simple. It's only "Part of the Body" when it relies on the host's body to survive.

Not really, it is part of the body as long as it is in the body.

Why?

One must also test ideas to see if they can be applied. Stating that it all depends on if they can survive outside of the womb creates a very fussy line, which is hard to apply.

It also presents a problem, a baby may live outside the womb with help of technology but will be severly handicapt. Is it worth it?

 

[jmontecillo01]

When can we call a fetus a human being

The biggest problem we have is defining when a human being can be called human. That is where we draw the line except of course, there will be a problem with the mother's health.

What makes us different from other species is that we have the ability to gather information and make use of it. We can then assume that we begin to be humans once we have the ability to gather information.

The question then is when does this ability start. Does it begin when we are concieved? The answer is not found in religion but by science.

 

[Darth Rotor]

San Francisco femanists screamed bloody "double-murder" at Scott Peterson. I think by the third trimester we are dealing with a child inside mommy's tummy.

San Francisco feminists are hardly an objective source of valid argument. As well ask a lynch mob for reasoned jurisprudence.

DR