Abortion questions...?

I have a question of my own. But before I being, I need to state my position on the matter to avoid the wrath of Khan... I mean crashfrog.I consider myself a pro-lifer because I do consider the fetus a person. I also support women's right to have abortions because I don't believe I should have a say in the matter (being a dude and all). I say let the women decide, or even better let them fight it out.My question is honestly a question because I honestly don't know. Please don't take this question as me trying to make a political statement. It's honestly not.What most pro-lifers refer to as partial birth abortion is actually a very late term abortion where the about to be born fetus/baby is turned so the feet would come out first and then the brain is sucked out right before the head comes out. Because there is no brain, the skull collapses as it is squeezed out. And despite what a lot of people believe, this very late term abortion is very rarely performed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.So far, I have not come across the answer to why this form of abortion is medically necessary. After attending a pro-choice seminar seeing 3 experts on the matter giving lectures on the social and medical issues surrounding the debate, I got to ask the lecturers this question. The answer they all gave was something like "if it wasn't necessary, doctors wouldn't have prescribe it."Does anyone here know why very late term abortion is medically necessary?Ok, I should explain why this question is important to me. Because I consider all life to be sacred, in an atheistic and masochistic kinda way, and since I consider a fetus to be alive, I have always thought that the fetus deserve some kind of chance for survival. I can't do anything about abortion in the first trimester if the woman wants to get rid of the parasite, and if the fetus can't survive on it's own then it's its fault. But if the woman wants to get rid of the parasite and if enough medical attention is given to the aborted fetus to let it live and grow, why not let it live and grow?

LudoRephaim writes

quote:

---

1. Is Partial birth abortion murder? I am asking this because some say that a fetus isn't human until after it is born. If the fetus/baby is born halfway, is it human or not??

---

I don't know.

quote:

---

2. If a baby is halfway born (partial birth), is it called a "fetaby" or a "betus"??

---

Perhaps you would like to submit a suggestion to linguists to have a word be added to the language?

quote:

---

3. Hypothetically, if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a fetus, all the way to an embryo, is a human being, would you still support a woman's right to choose?

---

This question is definitely slanted beyond recognition. This is like asking "if I grow two more arms and two more legs, would I still be a human being?" First of all, we need to define what a human being is. Thus far, noone has been able to come up with one that everyone can agree on.

quote:

---

4.If your loveable dog is pregnant with puppies, but you dont want them and cant support them with your finances, would you abort the puppies, or give away or sell them to a family that has a desire for 'em?

---

A) It costs more for the pregnant dog have an abortion than to raise the puppies.
B) This is assuming there are other families out there that want your breed of puppies.
C) You had the option to neuter or spade your dog. For the human world, this is called cruel and unusual punishment.
D) The selling of babies is called human trafficing.

quote:

---

5. If a Fetus is not human, would it be regarded as an animal, and if so, subject to animal rights?

---

I thought conservatives don't believe in animal rights.Do you think a human skin cell an animal?

quote:

---

6. If a baby is a baby after it comes out of the womans birth canal, then if a guy is making love to a woman, would he be a little less than human?

---

Beats me.

quote:

---

7. If it was made legal to end the life of a 1-10 year old kid if the parent/parents make that choice, would you be for or against it?

---

I was never for abortion in the first place. Besides, most types of abortion is not actively or directly killing the fetus.

Chiroptera, you haven't really answered my questions.

LudoRephaim writes

quote:

---

DNA could possibly help with that.

---

Some forms of genetic disorder, say trisomy 21, makes the "person" less genetically similar to the normal person than a chimpanzee.

quote:

---

The Biblical definition of bearing the "image of God" would work if religious definitions are needed.

---

Have you seen god? If so, how extensive was your study if HIS anatomy?

quote:

---

you can use other religious books as well if they have their own definitions.

---

As I pointed out, noone seems to be able to agree on any one definition of a person.

quote:

---

Do they actually do animal abortions?

---

Yes, but only if you have money and be able to find a physician that is willing to do it. Most vets aren't qualified.

quote:

---

That's just a stereotype. I happen to love animals more than most humans. I also support a clean environment and universal healthcare. But on issues such as this i am conservative.

---

Perhaps there are more things in common between us than I thought.

quote:

---

Skin cells would be defined as a microorganism, not a animal in the macro sense or consumer sense. I dont think they are animals but a part of a whole living being. Of course the skin cell wont grow into a human like an embryo if left to it's own devices.

---

You are now using the potential argument. I feel your pain, but consider using other approaches that are not so easily shot out of the water.

quote:

---

good responses.

---

Nah, I just pulled those out of my butt at the moment.

Chiroptera writes

quote:

---

Is this what you were asking for?

---

Again, either you don't understand what I'm asking for or you are avoiding the question.I recognize all of the above. In the message where I asked the questions, I specifically referred to the very late term abortion, where the woman is a few weeks to a few days away from the due date. To my understanding, with enough medical attention, the aborted fetus (baby) could still live.What are some medical reasons why the brain has to be sucked out rather than just letting the fetus come out all the way and then be taken from the mother right away (assuming she doesn't want it) for some serious medical attention?To my understanding, abortion is considered getting rid of the parasite that is inhabiting the woman. If there is the slightest chance that it could still live after exiting the woman's body, what are the reasons why we shouldn't let it?Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

Chiroptera writes

quote:

---

That is true. In your posts you simply say, "very late term abortions", which includes anything that occurs during the third trimester

---

I thought I made it clear that I was pro-life to the extend that I do not violate a woman's right to choose. Why would I be referring to the type of late term abortions that result in the aborted fetus not having any chance of survival in the outside world? I even said that I couldn't do anything about it.

quote:

---

I can't find an instance of this, but I'm not very good at using Google.

---

I once read an article several years back about a nurse testifying before congress some years back about these very rare types of very late term abortion (a few weeks to a few days before due date). I can't remember the article's name, so I suppose you don't have to take my word for it.

quote:

---

I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that any abortion that is being performed at this time is being done because of serious medical problems.

---

Which is the core of my question. I have never been able to get answer that is beyond "serious med problems".

quote:

---

In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter what the medical issues are in a situation like this, anyway. A woman is pregnant, and she doesn't want to be pregnant -- that is all the reason she needs.

---

Despite the several times I tried to make it clear that even though I'm a pro-lifer I also believe in a woman's right to choose, you still treat me like I'm anti-choice.Abortion simply means ejecting the parasite that is inhabiting the woman's body. It doesn't have to involve directly killing the unborn.What i'm trying to get at is when the fetus is a few seconds from becoming a baby, and if the woman doesn't want to keep the parasite, why not just let it out, take it away from the woman (she doesn't want it), and give it serious medical attention to give it at least a chance to survive? If it's only seconds away, why does it have to involve inserting a needle and extracting the brain?

Thank you, bob_gray. That's all I asked for.

Chiroptera writes

quote:

---

I am just emphasizing that after considering the issue my personal opinion is that the fetus before birth is still not a human being in the sense of having commonly accepted human rights.

---

I see two fundamental differences in our views.The obvious one is that I personally want to extend the most basic of basic human rights to the blob of cells we call the human embryo and the fetus.The less obvious is our definition of what an abortion is. I have always under the impression that abortion is simply rejecting the parasitic being that inhabits the woman's body. In other words, it is there solely by her grace only. We can think of that parasitic being as a house guest or even someone that constantly receives a blood transfusion from you. At any moment during its leisure stay in your home, you can kick it out, and that is your right. Or if you want to think of this as a blood transfusion example, the person giving the blood at anytime he wishes to stop giving blood to the patient. The patient receives the blood solely on his grace.The problem that I have with the method of abortion we've been discussing is that why do you need to inflict a mortal wound on the house guest IFF all you have to do is have him evicted from your home? With the patient receiving your blood, why do you need to shoot him in the head or kick him in the crotch before you disconnect him from yourself? Why not just let him have a fighting chance? (This only applies to situations where it is possible to safely evict the house guest without significant loss to you.)

quote:

---

Am I? Sorry, I didn't mean to. I meant to just answer the questions, and to make sure that there were no doubts about where I stand on the issue. For example:

---

After the several dozen messages you posted on this matter recently, I think everyone has a pretty good idea where you stand. What I had a problem with was the "it's the woman's choice..." statement in the middle of a conversation that is about something entirely different. It really looked like you were implying that I was insisting that the woman should have no choice in the matter.But I'm glad we came to an understanding

quote:

---

But I wanted to clarify that my stance on abortion does not depend anyway on medical issues, so I was pointing out to anyone reading our exchange that it is largely irrelevant to me whether or not there are medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy, and killing the fetus in the process, just a few weeks before completion of term.

---

I think your stance should depend somewhat on medical issues, especially if the procedure in question involves directly killing a being that very closely resembles my niece when I was looking after her a few years back. Ejecting the fetus from the mother is one thing, but actively killing something that is so human-like is another.Edited by rgb, : Changed neice to niece - e after i unless preceded by a c

RAZD writes

quote:

---

To prevent death or sever injury to the mother.

---

If the fetus is already almost out of the mother (everything but the head), wouldn't it be at least a little possible to try to remove the rest of the fetus without directly killing it?

quote:

---

To end a pointless pregnancy - the fetus is so genetically damaged that it will not survive much longer on its own anyway.

---

Again, the question isn't about ending a pregnancy or not. We have already established (or at least I thought we have) that abortion only requires the removal of the parasite.About the genetically damaged fetus, even in the Terry Schiavo (sp?) case, they didn't just stab her to death. They allowed her to die naturally.

quote:

---

To end a less than optimum pregnancy, where disabilities will affect the life of the parents as well as the child, so that the resources can be directed to having a healthy baby.

---

While I can see where you are coming from in this regard, the implication is somewhat disturbing (to me at least). We as a society have established that the survival of a deformed individual should not depend on the availability (or unavailability) of the resources.

quote:

---

To end a pregnancy where the life situation of the mother has changed and she will no longer be able to provide and support a child.

---

Again, the woman has every right to end the pregnancy whenever she wishes. The fetus is after all a parasitic guest whose safe occupation solely depends on the woman's grace. But the question isn't about simply ending the pregnancy. The question is about the necessity of inflicting a mortal wound on your house guest when all you have to do is have him evicted.

quote:

---

There are probably as many reasons as there are abortions - it is the right of the mother to decide in the end.

---

And I have never disputed her right to do so.

quote:

---

Why do so many pro-lifers have abortions?

---

Because they are hypocrits.RAZD, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I really do. It's just that you haven't taken the time to look at my posts carefully enough before you responded. What you have done is labeled me as the typical pro-lifer who has no regard for basic human rights. Despite the number of times I tried to explain my position, someone always shows up and assume that I want to deny people the right to allow others to use their organs. It's simply not fair, although you can argue that life isn't always fair Edited by rgb, : To change some minor grammar error