Partial Birth Abortion

That's a good question. After you read about so many 'primis' surviving these days, it really makes one wonder where to draw the line. At what point is the fetus a person and has rights? When it develops functioning lungs? Or when it is simply old enough to be able to survive outside the womb with life support?Eventually technology will push back the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb until women no longer need to carry the fetus, just wheel it around in a mobile fetal tank or keep it on the shelf in a fetal aquarium. Then where would we draw the line?I guess my answer would be unless it would threaten the life of the mother, I don't see a problem restricting third trimester abortions. If you've waited 6 months to finally decide to terminate the pregnancy you can wait three more and put the child up for adoption.This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 10:55 PM

C'mon Jar! That's a cop out. Surely there must be some general criteria to which you can agree? List your exceptions if necessary. Do you think abortion is perfectly acceptable right up until the mother starts crowning? I'm sure you have some other criteria than that; be fair and tell us what your position is.Inquiring minds want to know. This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 11:09 PM

Similar to Jar's perspective, but I just have a hard time buying that answer.Do you mean to say that if my gf carries a child until two weeks before delivery, then, for reasons of her own not relating to medical problems, she decides to terminate the pregnancy (assuming she could actually find someone to perform the abortion); then it would be ok with you since the decision is between her and the doctor?You wouldn't have a problem with someone aborting an 8-month-old fetus if the woman could find a doctor to agree to perform the abortion? Wow.That just seems too similar to birthing the child, then killing it afterwords because someone decides she doesn't want to deal with it; and that I do have a problem with.It's one thing when you are talking about aborting a sixty cell blastocyst, but as you get closer and closer to actual delivery, it seems less like abortion and more like killing.

Yes, the Catholic Church has been polishing that particular pearl of wisdom for centuries; look how successful it is for them.Such platitudes are easy to toss around, but they don't go very far to provide real answers for people. Many people are not so cavalier about killing children, and that's what I think an eight month old fetus is by the way, so the 'don't have sex if you don't want an abortion' advice just isn't very practical - or sympathetic.I disagree that the mother should be able to rid herself of her 'parasite' (that's a lovely description even if it is technically accurate) any time she wants but the reality is that very few partial-birth abortions are ever performed anyway.Crashfrog's 'you could be 8 months in before you decide' scenario is pretty rare, but I think if she's irresponsible enough to wait that long to make the decision, her labor should be induced and she should be sterilized immediately afterwards because she's obviously incapable of making those kinds of decisions.She can petition for fertility reinstatement at a later date if she demonstrates she is capable of the responsibility.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 03:51 AM

Touche. I was referring to sex outside marriage, but you make your point. Hmm, I disagree up to point, but as I'm not really a pro-lifer, it isn't really worth arguing. I just find it amazing that no-one sees (or cares?) the difference between aborting an eight month old and killing a nine-month old after it has been pulled from the womb. Why is one considered killing and the other isn't?It just seems to simple to say the mother might get stretch marks or need an apeasiotomy (sp?) so she has the right to terminate the pregnancy at any time. But I suppose that's oversimplification and, frankly, it isn't like those types of abortions happen much anyway. So, in a way, it's moot. Hell yeah, that's just what the gene pool needs! Or maybe it's just a way to demand responsibility for one's actions. Anyone irresponsible enough to wait until month eight or nine to terminate the pregnancy (not due to medical complications) shouldn't be spreading their genes around anyway.

No, I think I understand Jar. I think I'm just expressing frustration since the question was:Do you think partial abortions should be legal? Why or why not?So I was expecting a yes/no answer with some explanation, but all I saw was equivocating. I was looking at it from the perspective of, say, putting it up for a vote into law. I suppose an option is not to vote at all, but if you had to vote whether partial-birth abortions, abortions in the third tri-mester, should be legal, what would you vote? Yes? Or no?I would vote 'no' with the caveat that endangering the life of the mother would be a valid exception. But I'm on the fence, so I was actually curious to see what everyone else's reasons would be.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 11:20 AM