What's your position on abortion? And why?

[secrets0stolen]

Inspired by a few conversations with James.

[James81]

It can be a necessary evil (don't get too hung up on that word evil, I'm just using the expression loosely). That is, given the way our society is right now, I can see why it's necessary. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary.

My main issue is that people are unwilling to call it what it is: killing a potential baby. And my issues with the prochoice side have always surrounded that, but in every discussion I've had about it, they try to make it about a womans rights issue, which it is, but it is ALSO a baby's rights issue too. I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

It looks like you have distinguished The TruthTM.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Angela

It looks like you have distinguished The TruthTM.

You may be right.

[aelle]

I have never had one. I hope I never will.
But if I assessed that all things considered, life for myself and the potential child would be significantly worse should he be born, I might get one.

Legally I am in favor of letting women make this choice with the support of qualified professionals.

This is not strictly about abortion but I'll bring it up because it's contingent to my opinion: I do not think that as long as the kid is in the womb, anything goes, and when he's outside it's evil, evil murder. I am favorable to late abortions being decided between the parents and the medical team (which is de facto what happens, late abortions for convenience purposes are pretty much a myth), in the same way pulling the plug on a non viable born baby is decided in a team (it's not or badly legislated, but it's done, and I wish it had a legal framework too.)

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

That is, given the way our society is right now, I can see why it's necessary. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary.

Tha's interesting ; how do you define this perfect world that completely removes a need for abortion?

[James81]

A world where orphanages were not overfilled as they are and a world in which there are great parents lining up to adopt children and a world which could extract a fetus early in the pregnancy and keep it alive without the need for a womb.

In short, a world where the woman gets her choice to not have to wreak havoc on her body for a child that she doesn't want to keep without having to kill the child or put it in an orphanage where it had no primary caregiver.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by James81

It can be a necessary evil (don't get too hung up on that word evil, I'm just using the expression loosely). That is, given the way our society is right now, I can see why it's necessary. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary.

I agree, I think. Everyone's definition of perfect world is a little different.

My main issue is that people are unwilling to call it what it is: killing a potential baby.

In my experience many people will admit that, although what people will say isn't really that important. Ejaculation and menstruation also kill potential babies, the issue is always about where we draw the line.

And my issues with the prochoice side have always surrounded that, but in every discussion I've had about it, they try to make it about a womans rights issue, which it is, but it is ALSO a baby's rights issue too. I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

It is a human and it is alive. I know it's very common to not make a distinction, but their is one. Human DNA = human. Legal rights and specific ethical obligations = person. So, the question seems to be, where do you draw the line, and why?

[aelle]

A last point before I let others speak: I find the way the debate is framed in the US particularly unhelpful. I know people who are both pro-abortion AND anti-choice - people, for example, who emit judgement on who should and shouldn't have babies. You've probably heard them, trash talking "welfare queens" who are having another baby "just to milk the system", or arguing that so-and-so should not keep her child because she's too poor/the father is not around/she is not mentally stable/she is in an open relationship/etc. Being pro-conscious-choice, to me, means embracing the entirety of its definition, which goes well beyond the question of the legality of abortion.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by James81

In short, a world where the woman gets her choice to not have to wreak havoc on her body for a child that she doesn't want to keep without having to kill the child or put it in an orphanage where it had no primary caregiver.

You think that carrying and giving birth to a child doesn't 'wreak havoc' on the mothers body?

[James81]

My personal line would be at the three month mark for most abortions. There's no reason to be having them beyond that point except for the cases which involve health complications that threaten the health of the mother.

[Angela]

I think babies should have the rights of a person, and that an embryo is not a baby. A woman's right to choose whether to carry it to term trumps the embryo's and anyone else's. I'm glad that every state in the US agrees. Period.

[James81]

Originally Posted by elucidate

You think that carrying and giving birth to a child doesn't 'wreak havoc' on the mothers body?

I think you misunderstood. I said extract the fetus before it wreaks havoc on the body if the mother.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by James81

My personal line would be at the three month mark for most abortions. There's no reason to be having them beyond that point except for the cases which involve health complications that threaten the health of the mother.

It's actually illegal to have them beyond the four month mark...in Australia anyway. Not sure about anywhere else?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by James81

I think you misunderstood. I said extract the fetus before it wreaks havoc on the body if the mother.

Ah, ok...thanks.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by James81

A world where orphanages were not overfilled as they are and a world in which there are great parents lining up to adopt children and a world which could extract a fetus early in the pregnancy and keep it alive without the need for a womb.

In short, a world where the woman gets her choice to not have to wreak havoc on her body for a child that she doesn't want to keep without having to kill the child or put it in an orphanage where it had no primary caregiver.

Interesting, I took "perfect world" as a world with no rape, and fail safe contraception of universal availability for consensual sex.

[James81]

Originally Posted by aelle

A last point before I let others speak: I find the way the debate is framed in the US particularly unhelpful. I know people who are both pro-abortion AND anti-choice - people, for example, who emit judgement on who should and shouldn't have babies. You've probably heard them, trash talking "welfare queens" who are having another baby "just to milk the system", or arguing that so-and-so should not keep her child because she's too poor/the father is not around/she is not mentally stable/she is in an open relationship/etc. Being pro-conscious-choice, to me, means embracing the entirety of its definition, which goes well beyond the question of the legality of abortion.

I agree with your assessment that the way the debate is structured almost ensures that it remains a debate where people debate at each other without even understanding their respective positions on it.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

I think this is arguable, actually. A zygote can split and create twins who will without doubt become two different people. At the very least, the idea that a fertilized egg is a person is false.

Originally Posted by James81

My personal line would be at the three month mark for most abortions. There's no reason to be having them beyond that point except for the cases which involve health complications that threaten the health of the mother.

This is pretty much what happens today, though, especially if you include 'mental health' in 'health complications'. France actually makes a legal distinction between "voluntary pregnancy interruption" which is legal without justifications until week 14, and "medical pregnancy interruption" which is legal until birth, but requires an involed discussion and the consent of the whole medical team.

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Interesting, I took "perfect world" as a world with no rape, and fail safe contraception of universal availability for consensual sex.

My perfect world would have all these things regardless of the abortion issue, but still, many aborted pregnancies were actually fully desired and planned. You're still left with all the possible health complications of both the child and the mother.

[tinydancer]

Originally Posted by aelle

But if I assessed that all things considered, life for myself and the potential child would be significantly worse should he be born, I might get one.

I'm pro abortion in context, and aelle's comment rings true for me. I would want the best for any child i give birth to. If i can't provide that i would not continue with the pregnancy. For example if i fell pregnant in my current situation, that is, no partner, not studying/working, and living at home i would abort.

Abortions after 3 months in my opinion would have to have a very good reason (medical issues for mother/child obviously)

[spacecadetglow]

Pro-choice 100%. It has never made sense to me to legislate away someone else's choice. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself and don't have an abortion if you oppose, but your personal beliefs have nothing to do with my body and my fetus.

I'd say it's both a women's rights and a human rights issue. Secrets is right, the debate seems to usually gravitate towards where we draw the line. There are the fundamentalist nutters who oppose stem cell research and won't use birth control... yeah no. I think having a cutoff point is an okay compromise, but it should be a flexible thing in case there are complications involving the woman's life.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by James81

I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

When do you believe it is a person? From the second of conception? If that is true, how do you feel about the morning after pil?

Or, do you feel that it is a person but before the 3 month mark, it is ok to murder it?

I am simply curious about how you define this for yourself... No judgment involved...

[ssandra]

I believe the 3 month mark is a good way to go. Beyond that, I'd say only if there are grave dangers to the mom and/or baby to continue the pregnancy. Medical, physical dangers that is.

Late term abortions (after the 3rd month) I believe should be extremely rare and should be decided by the mom first, and if she says yes, by a team of doctors second. They are to decide, by a guideline, if the life of the mom is really in danger and if the life of the baby really would be better of ended instead of lived.

I must admit that that last one is a very difficult line for me personally. I wouldn't kill a born baby because it is ill, but I would a fetus?

[Elrond]

Do Human Rights start at conception?

Do Human Rights start at conception?

Originally Posted by Elrond

We can ponder our whole lives when an zygote/embryo/fetus develops an awareness/consciousness, or when a spirit possesses it.

However, there is one thing that gives the platform for your personality, your abilities, and indeed everything that makes you more than a mere cluster of cells: cognitive ability. It can also be fair to guess that consciousness springs forth from cognitive brain functions, moreso than any other part of a human. "I think, therefor I am." It can be argued that before the fetus/embyro/whatever has developed cognitive functions, it is just an organ that is dependent on the womans body, and therefor a part of the womans body, not a separate entity.

If a person becomes braindead, "it" doesn't have the rights of a cognitive person. The rights to take medical decisision on behalf of the cognitively deceased person is passed on and those with that responsibility can pull the plug if they so decide. You could say that it is because it is impossible for the braindead person to have any further say in the matter, but I would challenge you to find someone that thinks that ending the life of that person isn't the most reasonable decision to make. The person is gone.

Originally Posted by Elrond

There is no concrete right or wrong in this, but there are "benchmarks" that are more reasonable than others. I would say that the fetus can be considered to be a human when it starts to develop cognition, as this is what makes us more than a cluster of cells. It is what makes our personality and it is reasonable to assume that this is a likely point at which awareness springs forth. At least it seems more likely than that consciousness is linked to bodily functions like breathing and heartbeat. I am not sure of this, but I think that cognition precedes the ability to independently breath (developed lungs).

Though the point at which cognitive abilities are developed seems like a reasonable benchmark to me, i won't say that this makes it a human in the full sense, in that it has all the rights of a human outside of the womb. There are also the womans rights one must consider. It seems logical that the rights of the fetus grows as it becomes more developed. So the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the woman could be a tipping scale, and their rights would at some point be very close to each other. Though the woman will probably have more rights, since a pregnancy should be able to be terminated if it becomes a danger to the woman, though I'm moving into the gray areas of ethics now...

I won't propose any set week, since I haven't been able to find out when this development happens. But I do not think it happens before it becomes a fetus.

Cognitio, ergo sum, there you have it. Unless there are any objections or anyone who writes more pretentiously than me, I will consider this matter solved ones and for all and to be used for any future reference on this subject, kthnx goodnight.

Period.

[James81]

Originally Posted by ssandra

When do you believe it is a person? From the second of conception? If that is true, how do you feel about the morning after pil?

Or, do you feel that it is a person but before the 3 month mark, it is ok to murder it?

I am simply curious about how you define this for yourself... No judgment involved...

It's a person from the moment of conception. It's not alive until about six weeks into the pregnancy when it's heart starts beating.

And it's "ok to kill it before the 3 month mark" simply because of the way our society is structured at the moment. I'm not anti-abortion so much as I am anti-♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. That is, we don't need to call it something else to decide if a womans right to her body trumps the baby's right to live. I'm personally against the idea of killing babies, but I support a womans right to choose to do so if she feels she must. I just don't think it's necessary to bulkshit ourselves ad to what is really happening with abortions.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by spacecadetglow

Pro-choice 100%. It has never made sense to me to legislate away someone else's choice. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself and don't have an abortion if you oppose, but your personal beliefs have nothing to do with my body and my fetus.

I'd say it's both a women's rights and a human rights issue. Secrets is right, the debate seems to usually gravitate towards where we draw the line. There are the fundamentalist nutters who oppose stem cell research and won't use birth control... yeah no. I think having a cutoff point is an okay compromise, but it should be a flexible thing in case there are complications involving the woman's life.

Actually, I see it more in terms of a continuous curve rather than a cutoff point - and that curve goes way beyond birth. To me, before there is sentience and the possibility of pain, any choices are valid. When you have full sentience, you get to make your own choices. Between the two, it's a tradeoff between your interests and the interests of your caretaker that's very situation-dependent - and most women do weigh both parties' interests before deciding whether to continue a pregnancy or not.

Originally Posted by ssandra

When do you believe it is a person? From the second of conception? If that is true, how do you feel about the morning after pil?

The morning-after pill prevents conception

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

It's a person from the moment of conception.

I don't know if you missed my previous post, but how can it be a person if it can become two persons?

[Andrew Brunelle]

It could be murder, but not really. The unborn is exactly that, unborn. Most of the time, abortions are performed when the fetus is very, very small. Or even microscopic. It's hard to draw the line, and many of us would rather just say that life begins at conception, mostly because they hate grey areas. How come when somebody has a miscarriage there's no funeral? How come when you ask a pregnant lady how many children she has, it's something like two and one on the way instead of three children?

It comes down to a woman's choice, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Although I think men should also have some kind of rights as well, that is not the case today. Either way, it's not up to me to decide.

[st33med]

I can tell that it is going to be a looooooooooooooooong thread already.

[James81]

Originally Posted by st33med

I can tell that it is going to be a looooooooooooooooong thread already.

Yeah, I already decided that I'm bowing out after fifty pages.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by aelle

Actually, I see it more in terms of a continuous curve rather than a cutoff point - and that curve goes way beyond birth. To me, before there is sentience and the possibility of pain, any choices are valid. When you have full sentience, you get to make your own choices. Between the two, it's a tradeoff between your interests and the interests of your caretaker that's very situation-dependent - and most women do weigh both parties' interests before deciding whether to continue a pregnancy or not.

This is a really good description imo.

The morning-after pill prevents conception

I thought it prevented conception and implantation, if it was already conceived?