Do you concede abortion should be banned at some point?[W:415]

We can argue when abortion should be illegal and at what stage of the pregnancy, but to me, that's the smaller debate. And if you're not educated on the development of a fetus, then you don't know what you're talking about.

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

When I say based on the status of the fetus, that's important.
Because some will concede because of risks involving the mother during late term abortion, but not for any ethical opinions relating to the fetus. To me that's extremely selfish and devoid of morality. '

You have to concede that a some point abortion should be illegal because the fetus has developed so much that it's not ethical to kill it. I don't buy the viability argument.
I don't see how whether a fetus can live outside the womb or not is relevant to whether it's deserving of personhood.

And "personhood" is a social construct. Scientifically speaking it's a human with human DNA at every stage of pregnancy. But ethically there's clearly a difference between a fertilized egg and an 8 month old fetus.

I'm not pro-life... But I can't stand the selfishness I see from pro-choice people who basically see any ethical argument that pertains to the fetus as "sexist".
Apparantly, EVERY argument has to be about them.
I think most pro-lifers are pretty dumb too, but at the same time, pro-choice people tend to make strawmen about "sexism" which is just stupid. There's an argument to be had about when abortion is okay and when it isn't.
And you can chime in as a male and not be "sexist"

I don't know at what point, but yes.

whateverdude said:

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

Click to expand...

The vast majority of Pro-Choice advocates already do, and the SCOTUS case law includes trying to provide guidance on this point.

whateverdude said:

When I say based on the status of the fetus, that's important. Because some will concede because of risks involving the mother during late term abortion, but not for any ethical opinions relating to the fetus. To me that's extremely selfish and devoid of morality.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of triage? "A process in which things are ranked in terms of importance or priority." This happens all the time in medical treatment of critical situations. A fetus may well be viable, but in some cases trying to save it could either kill or seriously injure the mother. Current ideology based on our medical technology argues in favor of saving the mother, and I agree with it that.

whateverdude said:

You have to concede that a some point abortion should be illegal because the fetus has developed so much that it's not ethical to kill it. I don't buy the viability argument.
I don't see how whether a fetus can live outside the womb or not is relevant to whether it's deserving of personhood.

And "personhood" is a social construct. Scientifically speaking it's a human with human DNA at every stage of pregnancy. But ethically there's clearly a difference between a fertilized egg and an 8 month old fetus.

Click to expand...

No, it is not ethically, it is biologically.

No rational person who supports Pro-Choice considers fetal cells "non-human." That would be equivalent to claiming skin cells or hair follicles are non-human. Hell, a single strand of DNA taken from a human host is "human DNA."

But trying to call a developing zygote from it's inception a human being (i.e. a fully formed, viable, thinking creature) is a silly argument for pro-life. May as well call a patch of skin cells that remain alive shortly after being scraped off during an accident "a human" as opposed to simply human cells. They do carry all the DNA of the human being they came from, but they are not fully formed, viable, and/or thinking.

whateverdude said:

I'm not pro-life... But I can't stand the selfishness I see from pro-choice people who basically see any ethical argument that pertains to the fetus as "sexist". Apparantly, EVERY argument has to be about them.
I think most pro-lifers are pretty dumb too, but at the same time, pro-choice people tend to make strawmen about "sexism" which is just stupid. There's an argument to be had about when abortion is okay and when it isn't.
And you can chime in as a male and not be "sexist"

Click to expand...

I have no comment on this point, as it does not appear you are labeling all pro-choice people sexist.

whateverdude said:

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

Click to expand...

Do you based on a pre-defined time along the estimated gestation (which is commonly the law already) or on the basis of some specific developmental characteristics of the individual foetus? I’m not sure either measure presents an obvious point to draw the line, regardless of the basis you’re using to define it.

whateverdude said:

I'm not pro-life... But I can't stand the selfishness I see from pro-choice people who basically see any ethical argument that pertains to the fetus as "sexist".
Apparantly, EVERY argument has to be about them.

Click to expand...

I see your point but that kind of thing is often in response to ideas that essentially exclude the pregnant woman from the process entirely, dismissing her as simply a vessel, subject to the will of the entirely unrelated strangers. This is generally well beyond the point of rational debate from any side anyway (which IMO passes by the time there are “sides” at all), an example of how divisive and political the whole issue has become, entirely losing any of the real moral, medical, social or personal elements that should actually matter.

For me something isn't a person (morally speaking) until it possesses a mind. At some point in the 3rd trimester the brain is sufficiently developed that a rudimentary mind emerges, even capable of dreaming. So I am fine with the current Roe vs Wade cutoff. Now, in very rare cases 3rd trimester abortions are sought for serious medical reasons. In those cases abortion is a matter of triage.

whateverdude said:

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

Click to expand...

It's not a concession. I do however agree that under certain circumstances that an abortion past a certain point of fetal development should be illegal.

When I say based on the status of the fetus, that's important.
Because some will concede because of risks involving the mother during late term abortion, but not for any ethical opinions relating to the fetus. To me that's extremely selfish and devoid of morality. '

Click to expand...

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one (as was so often quoted in Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan)

If going full term will have dangerous risks to the mother then that needs to be factored in. I've known many people who have multiple children who are between 12-15 months apart. If a mother of two is facing a life-threatening third pregnancy...then the needs of the other two children have to be weighed in as well. Mother's life and the well being of the other two children have to be factored together against the needs of the fetus to be born.

You have to concede that a some point abortion should be illegal because the fetus has developed so much that it's not ethical to kill it. I don't buy the viability argument.
I don't see how whether a fetus can live outside the womb or not is relevant to whether it's deserving of personhood.

Click to expand...

Fetus is not developing lungs that will sustain its life outside of the womb. It'll be born, it'll want to breathe, it'll want to oxygenate its cells. It won't be able to. What it'll be able to do is to feel the body's panic at not being able to draw breath, to feel the body struggling to function when it can't get oxygen. It'll be able to feel the body shutting down and dying before the brain slips blissfully into oblivion.

That's just an example, but as someone who has choked once and felt the panic, the fear, the struggle before someone was able to dislodge the object...I can't imagine going the rest of the way would be any less unpleasant.

What then would be better? The long drawn out struggle, or a quick end of it all.

That's what doctors look at when they make the determination. What is the quality of life going to be outside of the womb when the baby is on it's own (and possibly malfunctioning) life support systems? Is it worth the pain that it will likely face or would it be better to end it before it develops fully?

And "personhood" is a social construct. Scientifically speaking it's a human with human DNA at every stage of pregnancy. But ethically there's clearly a difference between a fertilized egg and an 8 month old fetus.

Click to expand...

It may be human at conception, but it is FAR from being a person. There is a point where it's just a bunch of cells. It's not until later when it starts to develop the beginnings of a brain and neural tissue. Usually around the third week after conception. And even then it's not advanced enough to do anything apart from more development.

whateverdude said:

We can argue when abortion should be illegal and at what stage of the pregnancy, but to me, that's the smaller debate. And if you're not educated on the development of a fetus, then you don't know what you're talking about.

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

When I say based on the status of the fetus, that's important.
Because some will concede because of risks involving the mother during late term abortion, but not for any ethical opinions relating to the fetus. To me that's extremely selfish and devoid of morality. '

You have to concede that a some point abortion should be illegal because the fetus has developed so much that it's not ethical to kill it. I don't buy the viability argument.
I don't see how whether a fetus can live outside the womb or not is relevant to whether it's deserving of personhood.

And "personhood" is a social construct. Scientifically speaking it's a human with human DNA at every stage of pregnancy. But ethically there's clearly a difference between a fertilized egg and an 8 month old fetus.

I'm not pro-life... But I can't stand the selfishness I see from pro-choice people who basically see any ethical argument that pertains to the fetus as "sexist".
Apparantly, EVERY argument has to be about them.
I think most pro-lifers are pretty dumb too, but at the same time, pro-choice people tend to make strawmen about "sexism" which is just stupid. There's an argument to be had about when abortion is okay and when it isn't.
And you can chime in as a male and not be "sexist"

Click to expand...

I don't care if the fetus is 8 months and 25 days old, if it jeopardizes the life of the mother, kill it. Just like any one of us can shoot and kill anyone who threatens our life.

whateverdude said:

We can argue when abortion should be illegal and at what stage of the pregnancy, but to me, that's the smaller debate. And if you're not educated on the development of a fetus, then you don't know what you're talking about.

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

When I say based on the status of the fetus, that's important.
Because some will concede because of risks involving the mother during late term abortion, but not for any ethical opinions relating to the fetus. To me that's extremely selfish and devoid of morality. '

You have to concede that a some point abortion should be illegal because the fetus has developed so much that it's not ethical to kill it. I don't buy the viability argument.
I don't see how whether a fetus can live outside the womb or not is relevant to whether it's deserving of personhood.

And "personhood" is a social construct. Scientifically speaking it's a human with human DNA at every stage of pregnancy. But ethically there's clearly a difference between a fertilized egg and an 8 month old fetus.

I'm not pro-life... But I can't stand the selfishness I see from pro-choice people who basically see any ethical argument that pertains to the fetus as "sexist".
Apparantly, EVERY argument has to be about them.
I think most pro-lifers are pretty dumb too, but at the same time, pro-choice people tend to make strawmen about "sexism" which is just stupid. There's an argument to be had about when abortion is okay and when it isn't.
And you can chime in as a male and not be "sexist"

Click to expand...

If you're going to allow mass private killing of humans, I don't see any reason to worry too much about the day till which it's fine. At birth the little guys become persons. Maybe that would be the one to choose, if must be.

whateverdude said:

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

Click to expand...

NOPE. Because the "status of the fetus", at every moment during its existence inside the womb, including an hour before birth, is a status involving assaulting its hostess at least 4 different ways, worse than any ordinary parasite --and the only way to make it stop doing that Right Now is to kill it.

Abortion should not be banned at any stage. It is for doctors to practise medicine, not the govt.

whateverdude said:

We can argue when abortion should be illegal and at what stage of the pregnancy, but to me, that's the smaller debate. And if you're not educated on the development of a fetus, then you don't know what you're talking about.

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

When I say based on the status of the fetus, that's important.
Because some will concede because of risks involving the mother during late term abortion, but not for any ethical opinions relating to the fetus. To me that's extremely selfish and devoid of morality. '

You have to concede that a some point abortion should be illegal because the fetus has developed so much that it's not ethical to kill it. I don't buy the viability argument.
I don't see how whether a fetus can live outside the womb or not is relevant to whether it's deserving of personhood.

And "personhood" is a social construct. Scientifically speaking it's a human with human DNA at every stage of pregnancy. But ethically there's clearly a difference between a fertilized egg and an 8 month old fetus.

I'm not pro-life... But I can't stand the selfishness I see from pro-choice people who basically see any ethical argument that pertains to the fetus as "sexist".
Apparantly, EVERY argument has to be about them.
I think most pro-lifers are pretty dumb too, but at the same time, pro-choice people tend to make strawmen about "sexism" which is just stupid. There's an argument to be had about when abortion is okay and when it isn't.
And you can chime in as a male and not be "sexist"

Click to expand...

Yes, the point at which it should be illegal to abort is birth. When the fetus no longer poses an existential threat to a woman, she should cease to pose any legal, existential threat to it.

That's the only fair decision.

whateverdude said:

We can argue when abortion should be illegal and at what stage of the pregnancy, but to me, that's the smaller debate. And if you're not educated on the development of a fetus, then you don't know what you're talking about.

But do you concede that at some point, based on the status of the fetus, that it should be illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy?

When I say based on the status of the fetus, that's important.
Because some will concede because of risks involving the mother during late term abortion, but not for any ethical opinions relating to the fetus. To me that's extremely selfish and devoid of morality. '

You have to concede that a some point abortion should be illegal because the fetus has developed so much that it's not ethical to kill it. I don't buy the viability argument.
I don't see how whether a fetus can live outside the womb or not is relevant to whether it's deserving of personhood.

And "personhood" is a social construct. Scientifically speaking it's a human with human DNA at every stage of pregnancy. But ethically there's clearly a difference between a fertilized egg and an 8 month old fetus.

I'm not pro-life... But I can't stand the selfishness I see from pro-choice people who basically see any ethical argument that pertains to the fetus as "sexist".
Apparantly, EVERY argument has to be about them.
I think most pro-lifers are pretty dumb too, but at the same time, pro-choice people tend to make strawmen about "sexism" which is just stupid. There's an argument to be had about when abortion is okay and when it isn't.
And you can chime in as a male and not be "sexist"

Click to expand...

You're talking about your average going about ''person'' (like you) who doesn't bother with the abortion debate or merely only scratches the surface.

calamity said:

I don't care if the fetus is 8 months and 25 days old, if it jeopardizes the life of the mother, kill it. Just like any one of us can shoot and kill anyone who threatens our life.

Click to expand...

There is no need to kill such a fetus. :roll:

nota bene said:

There is no need to kill such a fetus. :roll:

Click to expand...

So, you think we should just let the mother die?

Skeptic Bob said:

For me something isn't a person (morally speaking) until it possesses a mind. At some point in the 3rd trimester the brain is sufficiently developed that a rudimentary mind emerges, even capable of dreaming. So I am fine with the current Roe vs Wade cutoff. Now, in very rare cases 3rd trimester abortions are sought for serious medical reasons. In those cases abortion is a matter of triage.

Click to expand...

I wanted to add that there are only about 100 abortions a year after 24 weeks gestation in all 50 states.
In these extremely rare cases a stat c -section is more dangerous for the woman's life than an abortion.

calamity said:

So, you think we should just let the mother die?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. How ridiculous. :3oops: At 8 months and 25 days a baby can be removed from the womb by C-section.

nota bene said:

I didn't say that. How ridiculous. :3oops: At 8 months and 25 days a baby can be removed from the womb by C-section.

Click to expand...

Read what I wrote!

calamity said:

I don't care if the fetus is 8 months and 25 days old, if it jeopardizes the life of the mother, kill it. Just like any one of us can shoot and kill anyone who threatens our life.

Click to expand...

We are talking about situations where the C-section kills mom here.

minnie616 said:

I wanted to add that there are only about 100 abortions a year after 24 weeks gestation in all 50 states.
In these extremely rare cases a stat c -section is more dangerous for the woman's life than an abortion.

Click to expand...

Correct.

calamity said:

So, you think we should just let the mother die?

Click to expand...

I think he's pointing out that an 8 month, 25 day old fetus is close enough to full term. You would at that point have to take it out of the mother's womb. And if there are risks to the mother for natural or C-Section, then alive or dead, the risks are the same.

There would be no need to kill the child first before doing so.

I do get your point however. Up until the survivability of the fetus outside the womb hits a certain point, then if the pregnancy is going to be a high probability of harmful (potentially lethal) complications to the mother...then it needs to be aborted.

Unless...

...the artificial womb that they're currently testing works out and you get the best of both worlds. The fetus and the pregnancy are no longer a threat to the mother's life or health...and the fetus can be left to develop.

Hypnotoad said:

I think he's pointing out that an 8 month, 25 day old fetus is close enough to full term. You would at that point have to take it out of the mother's womb. And if there are risks to the mother for natural or C-Section, then alive or dead, the risks are the same.

There would be no need to kill the child first before doing so.

I do get your point however. Up until the survivability of the fetus outside the womb hits a certain point, then if the pregnancy is going to be a high probability of harmful (potentially lethal) complications to the mother...then it needs to be aborted.

Unless...

...the artificial womb that they're currently testing works out and you get the best of both worlds. The fetus and the pregnancy are no longer a threat to the mother's life or health...and the fetus can be left to develop.

Click to expand...

What is it with anti abortion people? C-Section is not like waving some magical wand. No surgical extraction is free from serious health risk. If the fetus is a threat, it's a threat, and going for the C-section will not alleviate that threat. Hell, it may not even reduce the risk to the mother at all, but rather it may increase it.

Hypnotoad said:

I think he's pointing out that an 8 month, 25 day old fetus is close enough to full term. You would at that point have to take it out of the mother's womb. And if there are risks to the mother for natural or C-Section, then alive or dead, the risks are the same.

There would be no need to kill the child first before doing so.

Click to expand...

That is what I meant.

And I have had a "stat" C-section.

calamity said:

What is it with anti abortion people? C-Section is not like waving some magical wand. No surgical extraction is free from serious health risk. If the fetus is a threat, it's a threat, and going for the C-section will not alleviate that threat. Hell, it may not even reduce the risk to the mother at all, but rather it may increase it.

Click to expand...

Well then...In the case of the "8 month, 25 day old fetus", how then do you suggest getting it out? If you can't get it out via C-Section, and can't deliver it naturally...surgical transporter ala Star Trek?

You had a valid point up until you used the example of the 95% cooked fetus.

calamity said:

What is it with anti abortion people? C-Section is not like waving some magical wand. No surgical extraction is free from serious health risk. If the fetus is a threat, it's a threat, and going for the C-section will not alleviate that threat. Hell, it may not even reduce the risk to the mother at all, but rather it may increase it.

Click to expand...

And for the record? I'm pro-life and pro-choice. Take that as you will.

Hypnotoad said:

Well then...In the case of the "8 month, 25 day old fetus", how then do you suggest getting it out? If you can't get it out via C-Section, and can't deliver it naturally...surgical transporter ala Star Trek?

You had a valid point up until you used the example of the 95% cooked fetus.

Click to expand...

My point was when the abortion is safer than the C-section, the mother should have a right to choose the former. I have no idea why, when or how this occurs, but I know it does.

Hypnotoad said:

And for the record? I'm pro-life and pro-choice. Take that as you will.

Click to expand...

Me too...and, I am certainly not a fan of late term abortions...unless it is truly a life saving measure to protect the health and life of the mother. BTW, I am not in favor of shooting people either, but I certainly support justifiable homicide.