|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abortion questions...? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
You may want to check the medical literature on that. It is extremely rare. Most women would die if they kept an ectopic pregnancy to the point that the baby was viable outside of the womb. If you want to present evidence to support your assertion I would love to read it. I said ''in some cases'', because I had heard/read of it, but didn't know how frequent it was. Turns out the example I chose was a rare thing, but it does happen. (Miracle baby Billy grew outside his mother's womb | Daily Mail Online) In any case, the specific example I chose is a non-issue. The point is that if you can save the mother and the foetus, then that is what you should do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So this "society of the future" rips the choice away from the woman?
Monetary reasons should never be the reason a human life isn't saved. What "human life"? The only "life" that we can even substantially define is .......ding ding ding! the woman's!
Foster family. So you would also champion for more couples to get rights to adopt?
Orphanage. Seriously?
Of course, as I said, none of them are ideal situations, but I think that if we really wanted to, a lot of progress could be made into this. Yes, and it starts with education. The likes of which anti-choicers such as yourself fight so hard against. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Every child should be given a chance to live, even if the starting situation isn't ideal. I agree. However, the reality is that women do seek out abortions and will continue to do so even if it is made illegal. When abortions were illegal there was a serious class issue that arose where poor women were not allowed access or only had access to very dangerous alternatives. At the same time, rich women (read "white") had access to doctors that would perform hush-hush abortions in safe and clean environments using modern medical procedures. While it saddens my heart that any woman would choose to abort their pregnancy it saddens me more to see women dying from medial malpractice as a result of poverty. In the end, it isn't my decision to make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Of course, we are talking about the society of the future, the one we would like to build. Obviously, we aren't there yet. In our modern society, young and single mothers are villified by the very people who would like to stop them from getting an abortion. We live in a political environment where the party demonizing welfare recipients who receive money for children they did not abort is the same party claiming that abortion is wrong. Until women are not demonized for giving birth and face decades of economic disadvantages you will continue to see women seeking abortions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3980 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Taq writes: In the end, it isn't my decision to make. If only this view were more predominant. We have this raging debate about where life begins... conception, 100th cell division, and so on, but the very real potential hardships lie solely with the mother, and I don't see how it should fall to a guy in a suit on Capitol Hill to call her a murderer if she makes the tough choice to terminate a pregnancy at this stage where the "human being" is the size of a pencil point, most closely resembles a worm (that's 3 weeks, at 4 we begin to see a resemblance to a tadpole - how can anyone look at embryology without seeing evidence of evolution written all over it?) - AND - probably most importantly - exists within the body of the mother. I agree with the sentiments expressed by others - being "pro-choice" does not mean I want to see more abortions. I just don't see how such things can (or should) be legislated. If I were female I would be aghast at the notion that the law could reach into my internal organs. Forgive me if someone's already posed this type of question...
If a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant (a point at which I assume most "pro-lifers" consider it a "human being") decides to take a ride on a bicycle, hits a bump, falls off and has a miscarriage as a result of the tumble... is she guilty of negligent homicide? If not, how can voluntary termination at this early stage be considered homicide?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So this "society of the future" rips the choice away from the woman? Begging the question epithet.
What "human life"? The only "life" that we can even substantially define is .......ding ding ding! the woman's! I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb. So when you can save that life, and the mother's life, you should. No matter what the differences in costs. That's what I'm saying.
So you would also champion for more couples to get rights to adopt? I would certainly be for easier adoption procedures, particularly for children within your own country.
Seriously? Yeah well there are obviously lots of better options.
Yes, and it starts with education. The likes of which anti-choicers such as yourself fight so hard against. How you can seriously think I oppose education is beyond me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: So this "society of the future" rips the choice away from the woman? Begging the question epithet.
What "human life"? The only "life" that we can even substantially define is .......ding ding ding! the woman's! I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb. MIGHT survive outside the womb and then only at extreme expense. See Message 176. Edited by jar, : add link to earlier message. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
When a five-year-old is deathly ill and "could survive" at great expense, who decides? ... given the right care, could survive outside the womb. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
When a five-year-old is deathly ill and "could survive" at great expense, who decides? Nobody decides, we do all we can to save him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Do you, or do you not, agree that we should try and save both the foetus and the mother ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
You know that isn't true. Every pateint is not kept on life-support forever. ringo writes:
Nobody decides, we do all we can to save him. When a five-year-old is deathly ill and "could survive" at great expense, who decides? How about an honest answer? Who decides? "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
If a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant (a point at which I assume most "pro-lifers" consider it a "human being") decides to take a ride on a bicycle, hits a bump, falls off and has a miscarriage as a result of the tumble... is she guilty of negligent homicide? If not, how can voluntary termination at this early stage be considered homicide? You'll have to define what is negligence, but I doubt it is to be defined in a way that it is doing something, knowing there is a very,very small chance of a bad thing happening Am I negligent when I drive a car, knowing there is an equally small chance of me hitting someone ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
You know that isn't true. Every pateint is not kept on life-support forever. How about an honest answer? Who decides? It was an honest answer. You do all you can to save him. If everything has been done and tried, then the closest relatives decide to let him die. Note the important difference between ''letting him die'' and ''actively causing it's death''.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3980 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
slevesque writes: If a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant (a point at which I assume most "pro-lifers" consider it a "human being") decides to take a ride on a bicycle, hits a bump, falls off and has a miscarriage as a result of the tumble... is she guilty of negligent homicide? If not, how can voluntary termination at this early stage be considered homicide? You'll have to define what is negligence, but I doubt it is to be defined in a way that it is doing something, knowing there is a very,very small chance of a bad thing happening Am I negligent when I drive a car, knowing there is an equally small chance of me hitting someone ? A valid and fair response. And by the way I don't presume to know whether you would class the voluntary termination of a 5 week pregnancy as "murder" or not (I try to absorb the previous posts in these threads before commenting, but not always terribly successfully). I just wonder how these "moral quandaries" play out in other people's minds, and I worry about the efforts to overturn Roe V Wade given the many "grey areas" on the subject. I seem to recall a story from the states (where I originated btw) where a man was charged with double homicide after shooting a pregnant woman. Despite my previous statements, I can see the logic in that charge, which makes me think "well how can I view abortion as acceptable then?" - but it seems to have a WHOLE LOT to do with the circumstances and the choices of the mother. I believe this debate will rage on, at least in the states, for many years to come.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
slevesque writes:
Yes, that was the criterion that I proposed earlier in the thread. If the fetus has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb, I personally am less comfortable with aborting it. If everything has been done and tried, then the closest relatives decide to let him die. Note the important difference between ''letting him die'' and ''actively causing it's death''. So if the closest relatives - e.g. the mother - get to decide how much effort goes into saving a five-year-old child, why should complete strangers get to decide the fate of a five-week-old fetus? "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024