Where should the line be drawn on abortion?

[catzmeow]

People who hate new life call it inconvenient

Edited. I'm a mother with two children. I don't "hate new life," I brought two new lives into the world, one at great personal risk to myself. But, I recognize that not everyone is cut out for motherhood, and there are already too many unwanted children in the U.S. I would not choose to have an abortion, but if my 14-year-old son got a girl pregnant, I would encourage her to take RU-486 and terminate the pregnancy.

No kid needs a 14-year-old father, and my son needs a kid at this point in his life even less than he needs another hole in his head.

I work with unwanted children for a living, and I recognize there are worse things in life than terminating a 4-week-old fetus.

 

[koshergrl]

As I said, rights exist separate from law.

Supreme court decisions delineate rights and overturn/uphold laws. Thanks for playing.

Rights exist apart from the law. It used to be legal to own slaves, but their rights were being violated all the same. Eventually the law changed, but that doesn't mean their rights weren't violated before the change. It is legal to stone women in certain countries...it is still a violation of their human rights to do so. It used to be legal to rape your wife...and yet her human rights were violated when that happened.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No, that's not true. If an unborn baby was just a part of the mother's body, it wouldn't be called an abortion, it would be an amputation.

Abortion means to kill the fetus. If you can kill the baby without killing the mother, it is a separate life. Therefore, she has no right to kill it.

The fact that people decided to give an abortion a separate moniker does not dictate the nature of an abortion.

And we kill living things all the time. The crux of the question is on whether or not you consider a fetus "human" enough not to allow killed. Deny it up and down, there are circumstances aplenty that apply to a fetus that don't apply to a person already born, when not applying your personal morals to the equation you have to admit that the argument isn't simple or definitive.

 

[koshergrl]

I know the argument isn't simple. However, I also know that law does not bestow rights upon humans. Catz is using the fact that law has determined that abortion is legal to make the argument that abortion doesn't violate the rights of the fetus, and it's a fallacious argument.

 

[koshergrl]

As is the argument that non-sentient humans have no rights.

 

[Borillar]

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?

I am morally opposed to abortion, but I understand and support a woman's right to choose one. I would draw the line at the point where a baby would be able to survive outside the womb on its own. The only thing superseding that would be the medical needs of the mother.

This thread and the other one regarding no abortions allowed for rape or incest have been interesting reading. I mentioned in the other thread that it was interesting to contrast the views of those on the right vis-a-vis Abortion and banning Assault Weapons.
You get rigid resistance against limiting gun rights with regard to assault weapons, the only purpose of which is to kill masses of humans. However, they would happily compromise or eliminate altogether a woman's reproductive and privacy rights, because humans (fetuses) are being killed (surgically removed).

 

[Uncensored2008]

The fact that people decided to give an abortion a separate moniker does not dictate the nature of an abortion.

And we kill living things all the time. The crux of the question is on whether or not you consider a fetus "human" enough not to allow killed. Deny it up and down, there are circumstances aplenty that apply to a fetus that don't apply to a person already born, when not applying your personal morals to the equation you have to admit that the argument isn't simple or definitive.

Whether YOU consider a Jew, or a black, or a fetus, human is of no relevance.

The FACT is that they all are human. A simple DNA test confirms it in every case. That the common tactic is to dehumanize the intended victim alters nothing.

 

[Steelplate]

Two Questions.

What is a Soul?

When is it first present in a Human Life?

I'd say a soul is a spiritual presence of a human being

I associate life beginning when a fertilized egg attaches to the mother's body and begins the process of growing when being nurtured by her body's agreement to do so by chemically accepting its attachment and beginning a process of feeding it.

These are not conscious decisions. They are physical decisions, detached from reason by chemical messages on cell membranes. Our forbears called it the miracle of God.

People who hate new life call it inconvenient and set out to get rid of the life growing in their body. That is a conscious decision, just like agreeing to unprotected sex was a decision, or deciding to rape an underage girl or not use protection in a casual act of sexual intercourse is a decision.

no one "hates new life". that's hyperbole, and you know it.

The truth is...you can associate life with whatever you choose, but you ate never, ever going to get your way in this. I think it's time for people like Koshergirl and yourself to realize that. It does no good to pound your heads against a wall. The best thing that can come about is to have a reasonable compromise. In a compromise, neither side gets it's way completely.

As far as God. goes? That's between him and the sinner...it's really none of your business.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread and the other one regarding no abortions allowed for rape or incest have been interesting reading. I mentioned in the other thread that it was interesting to contrast the views of those on the right vis-a-vis Abortion and banning Assault Weapons.
You get rigid resistance against limiting gun rights with regard to assault weapons, the only purpose of which is to kill masses of humans. However, they would happily compromise or eliminate altogether a woman's reproductive and privacy rights, because humans (fetuses) are being killed (surgically removed).

That is an example of conservatives being inconsistent.

They scoff at the ‘made up’ right of privacy, arguing it’s ‘not in the Constitution,’ and advocating an expansion of government authority into citizens’ private lives.

Yet they accept the Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment with regard to an individual right and the right to self-defense, when neither can be found in the text of the Amendment.

If one believes in restricting government and preserving his civil rights – be it the right to privacy with regard to abortion or the right to own a handgun – he must adhere to a consistent application of those restrictions, otherwise his argument is fatally undermined.

 

[thanatos144]

Supporting abortion is supporting the death of innocent babies.

 

[koshergrl]

Also inappropriate.

 

[Noomi]

Supporting abortion is supporting the death of innocent babies.

There are no babies killed during abortion.

 

[koshergrl]

Irrelevant. "Baby" is just a developmental stage. Fetus is the developmental stage before baby. Child is the developmental stage after baby. Adolescent is the developmental stage after child. Adult is the developmental stage after adolescent.

They're just names of the developmental stages of a human being. But they are all human beings.

 

[Noomi]

Irrelevant. "Baby" is just a developmental stage. Fetus is the developmental stage before baby. Child is the developmental stage after baby. Adolescent is the developmental stage after child. Adult is the developmental stage after adolescent.

They're just names of the developmental stages of a human being. But they are all human beings.

Is a rotting corpse a human being?

 

[koshergrl]

No, a rotting corpse is a rotting corpse, and dead.

Are you now arguing that a fetus is dead before the abortion?

 

[thanatos144]

Supporting abortion is supporting the death of innocent babies.

Your concern over human life is quite touching. Especially your signature line about using as many rounds as it takes, presumably to kill another human.

Innocent was the opertive word.

 

[Noomi]

No, a rotting corpse is a rotting corpse, and dead.

Are you now arguing that a fetus is dead before the abortion?

No, I am saying there are also stages. A stage when a person comes into being, and the final stage when the person is dead. A fetus is not a person because its life has not officially begun.

 

[koshergrl]

"dead" is not a stage of development.

Sorry.

 

[koshergrl]

"Life from conception to old age and death includes prenatal, infant, toddler, preschooler, child, adolescent, adult and older adult stages.

Read more: Human Life Cycles & Transitions | LIVESTRONG.COM
​

 

[Noomi]

"dead" is not a stage of development.

Sorry.

Death is when development ceases. It is still a stage.