ABORTION

[dalegg 143]

Thats all very nice. You argued whether or not the fetus was a "human", but not whether it is alive. As I said, the simple question of life is undeniable.

But it is relevant because the way we determine when someone is dead would logically apply to when we determine when someone is alive. If simple saying something is alive is the determining factor, then every wasted sperm and every unfertilized egg is ceasing to live and any form of birth control method contributes to the those living organisms dying. If you don't agree with the premise that life ceases when the brain flat lines, then when do you consider someone as dead?

"Life" has nothing to do with brainwaves. Maybe the concept of sentienceness does, but not life itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have to worry about the scientists at NASA having an orgasm over the idea of discovering 3 bacteria frozen under the polar ice caps of Mars.

Don't you find it ironic that we will spend billions of dollars to hopefully find nothing more than perhaps an ancient fossized sample of moss on Mars so we can say there was "LIFE" there, and yet a fetus pumping blood with five fingers and five toes on each limb is not granted the same definition?

We're talking about determining when a human is alive (human life) and when someone is determined to be dead. You can have a full grown human, whose heart continues to beat and the body organs continue to function, but they are brain dead...and in such a case, the surviving family may choose to pull the respirator plug without being charged with murder. At least, on a logical approach - the same could be said about a fetus that although may have some organs functioning, there is no brain activity. You might argue over whether that is sound approach to the dilemna of determining when someone is 'alive' but logically, it coincides with determining when a person is clinically dead.

Just to be clear, are you denying that a fetus is alive at all or are you just denying that it is human? Also, I don't agree that comparing a fetus to someone who is braindead is logical at all. The braindead human most likely has no chance of ever becoming conscious again, whereas with the fetus its only a few weeks away from being undesputable. Also, the person living on life support may very well have stated that they wish to be removed from life support at some point so at least they have a choice in the matter.

Sperm are also human and alive, are they not? Or do you define living human tissue through cell division? If so, then so is a cancerous tumor.

I personally feel that all life is precious and it would not be a decision that I think any woman could take lightly. I don't think anyone would feel proud or good about such a decision, but equating it to murder....I could not see it as such in the early stages of pregnancy, just I couldn't see pulling the plug on a respirator when a person on life support is in a vegetative state.

Sperm are not human man! Afterall you can make a human without sperm, more than half of all humans do not even have sperm and the vast majority of sperm's only purpose is to die while keeping the woman's defense systems busy. Yes, I define living human tissue through cell division. I think that is pretty much the definition.

[dalegg 143]

Sounds like a fight Dalegg, I agree with Amby... It's good that you have strong beliefs and noone here is trying to change the way think or the way u are

Nah, it's not a fight. I think some of you are misunderstanding my point here anyway. Believe it or not I'm not really 100% decided either way on whether abortion should be illegal or not. You're never going to see me picketing in front of abortion clinics for example and I wouldn't vote on a single candidate based on his stance on the issue.

If an initiative came up on the ballot, I'd probably vote to make it illegal- I'll admit that. I sort of feel compelled too, but then again I don't know what sort of punishment you'd give to people who broke that law. I certainly don't think women or doctors who perform these operations are any sort of threat to society and we have enough people in prison as it is. I guess I think that it will all pan out when you get to the pearly gates and have to pass judgement there.

People want abortion to be legal because of their belief that a woman owns the rights to her body. That is a fair enough argument, and has even passed legal mustard, but I'd like to see them just admit that they believe a woman's right to do with her body what she wants out trumps the fact that there is a human life going to die, just like I have no problem admitting that I believe the fetuses right to life outtrumps the woman's right to do with what she wants to he own body. As you can see though, I am having a very hard time even getting some people to admit that it is not only a human life, but that its any sort of life at all, or if it is then its nothing more than a "parasite" or a "cancerous tumor"

Its just philosophical and nobody thinks anyone's opinion is going to change.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People want abortion to be legal because of their belief that a woman owns the rights to her body. That is a fair enough argument, and has even passed legal mustard, but I'd like to see them just admit that they believe a woman's right to do with her body what she wants out trumps the fact that there is a human life going to die, just like I have no problem admitting that I believe the fetuses right to life outtrumps the woman's right to do with what she wants to he own body. As you can see though, I am having a very hard time even getting some people to admit that it is not only a human life, but that its any sort of life at all, or if it is then its nothing more than a "parasite" or a "cancerous tumor"

Its just philosophical and nobody thinks anyone's opinion is going to change.

I'm glad we're able to have this discussion because we're focused on the biological aspects of the issue more than on moral grounds.

As for defining a human life though, Dale, I don't think it's being consistent to say that a brain dead fully grown human who is being kept alive on a respirator is any different than the early stages of a fetus where there is no brain activity. Although it may eventually form into a living human with a functioning brain, the point stills stands that prior to brain activity (if that is the criteria for determining when someone is alive), we can't really say that the fetus is a living human being. I understand it has all the makings to become human, but on a biological level, it has yet to form into one. And if you're criteria for determing what is a living human is through the division of cells, then by the that definition, a cancerous tumor is also living human tissue. This all comes into play then whether aborting a fetus is equivalent to taking another human's life and I just don't see it as such. I would agree that it's taking a form a life, just as pulling the plug on a respirator would be to a human vegetable, but I would not call either situation murder, nor would I ever endorse someone being sent to prison over such a decision.

[dalegg 143]

People want abortion to be legal because of their belief that a woman owns the rights to her body. That is a fair enough argument, and has even passed legal mustard, but I'd like to see them just admit that they believe a woman's right to do with her body what she wants out trumps the fact that there is a human life going to die, just like I have no problem admitting that I believe the fetuses right to life outtrumps the woman's right to do with what she wants to he own body. As you can see though, I am having a very hard time even getting some people to admit that it is not only a human life, but that its any sort of life at all, or if it is then its nothing more than a "parasite" or a "cancerous tumor"

Its just philosophical and nobody thinks anyone's opinion is going to change.

I'm glad we're able to have this discussion because we're focused on the biological aspects of the issue more than on moral grounds.

As for defining a human life though, Dale, I don't think it's being consistent to say that a brain dead fully grown human who is being kept alive on a respirator is any different than the early stages of a fetus where there is no brain activity. Although it may eventually form into a living human with a functioning brain, the point stills stands that prior to brain activity (if that is the criteria for determining when someone is alive), we can't really say that the fetus is a living human being. I understand it has all the makings to become human, but on a biological level, it has yet to form into one. And if you're criteria for determing what is a living human is through the division of cells, then by the that definition, a cancerous tumor is also living human tissue. This all comes into play then whether aborting a fetus is equivalent to taking another human's life and I just don't see it as such. I would agree that it's taking a form a life, just as pulling the plug on a respirator would be to a human vegetable, but I would not call either situation murder, nor would I ever endorse someone being sent to prison over such a decision.

Well, we just are not in agreement then.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, we just are not in agreement then.

Can't have that.

Keep fighting!

[Mags 112]

(On the issue of Personhood )

22 weeks seems too long, IMO. I can't rationalize it, but it just looks too much like a little person to say that it is not a person.

I dissected 100s of fetuses during my job in the UK (all aborted for genetic syndromes or fetal abnormalities noted on scan or via pre-natal testing) and they look fully formed (in fact ARE fully formed) at 12 weeks. All that is "missing" is size, a fat layer, organ maturity and the eyes are not ready for usage yet.

I think the cut off date for abortions should be around 18 weeks and no later. After that, a fetus can be potentially born viable (albeit there'll be problems throughout its life) and I think that's something to think about when considering cut off dates. In the majority of countries they will perform abortions up until 39 weeks IF the child has an abnormality (this includes, disgustingly enough, cleft palates) and the parent makes enough fuss.

They just keep this information hush hush because they know full well there would be a backlash if this was common knowledge. Mostly they deny it.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Magenta

[Marilyn. 340]

my first baby was born at 23 weeks and he looked very much like a baby only very small..

my other baby was stillborn at 19 weeks and she too looked like a baby... just very very small..

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

C'mon, people, I'm hearing too many facts and not enough name-calling!!

Get with the program, y'all!!

[Reynaldo 0]

C'mon, people, I'm hearing too many facts and not enough name-calling!!

Get with the program, y'all!!

A.J., why do you even try?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(On the issue of Personhood )

22 weeks seems too long, IMO. I can't rationalize it, but it just looks too much like a little person to say that it is not a person.

I dissected 100s of fetuses during my job in the UK (all aborted for genetic syndromes or fetal abnormalities noted on scan or via pre-natal testing) and they look fully formed (in fact ARE fully formed) at 12 weeks. All that is "missing" is size, a fat layer, organ maturity and the eyes are not ready for usage yet.

I think the cut off date for abortions should be around 18 weeks and no later. After that, a fetus can be potentially born viable (albeit there'll be problems throughout its life) and I think that's something to think about when considering cut off dates. In the majority of countries they will perform abortions up until 39 weeks IF the child has an abnormality (this includes, disgustingly enough, cleft palates) and the parent makes enough fuss.

They just keep this information hush hush because they know full well there would be a backlash if this was common knowledge. Mostly they deny it.

Interesting.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

C'mon, people, I'm hearing too many facts and not enough name-calling!!

Get with the program, y'all!!

A.J., why do you even try?

Troll life forever, yo!

[Dr. Obvious 49]

1) Not pro-abortion, rather pro-choice.

2) It should be legal, particularly in the case of nasty deformities. http://www.thefetus.net/index.php should help if you think Down's Syndrome is the worst that can happen. I had an awful obession with that site while I was pregnant with my daughter. I almost threw up looking at one of nature's finer mistakes and I have a strong stomach! Note: Do not look if you are expecting or eating lunch.

3) No. My husband had a vasectomy so it seems highly unlikely that it would come up anyway. If we are in the freak percentage table, I would say that kid wanted to be born. After the birth, I think the vasectomy would be redone and I would try another IUD or Essure.

[Emancipation 2]

Hubby & I had a chat about this very issue the other night and his point was that we have focused so much on the mother's "rights" in this situation that we have missed out on providing protection for the fathers involved, who either never know about the pregnancy or do not want the pregnancy terminated but really are not even part of the equation at all.

It was a good point I thought regardless of what side of the issue you stand on.

[kerewin21 2]

I dissected 100s of fetuses during my job in the UK (all aborted for genetic syndromes or fetal abnormalities noted on scan or via pre-natal testing) and they look fully formed (in fact ARE fully formed) at 12 weeks. All that is "missing" is size, a fat layer, organ maturity and the eyes are not ready for usage yet.

I think the cut off date for abortions should be around 18 weeks and no later. After that, a fetus can be potentially born viable (albeit there'll be problems throughout its life) and I think that's something to think about when considering cut off dates. In the majority of countries they will perform abortions up until 39 weeks IF the child has an abnormality (this includes, disgustingly enough, cleft palates) and the parent makes enough fuss.

They just keep this information hush hush because they know full well there would be a backlash if this was common knowledge. Mostly they deny it.

Abortion at 39 weeks is absolutely ridiculous. 39 weeks is full term and an "abortion" at this time would really just be an induction of labor. Attempting to suction a fetus this large out would be incredibly dangerous to the mother.

18 weeks is definitely not viable either. 23 weeks has a very small chance of making it. Over 24 weeks and there's a decent chance. Once you hit 28 weeks chances are pretty good that the baby will survive and often they will be OK.

[Mags 112]

Abortion at 39 weeks is absolutely ridiculous. 39 weeks is full term and an "abortion" at this time would really just be an induction of labor. Attempting to suction a fetus this large out would be incredibly dangerous to the mother.

18 weeks is definitely not viable either. 23 weeks has a very small chance of making it. Over 24 weeks and there's a decent chance. Once you hit 28 weeks chances are pretty good that the baby will survive and often they will be OK.

They inject the heart with potassium chloride to kill the baby. Then they induce labour and the mother gives birth like she would do normally, except the child is dead.

18 weeks is not viable at the moment (although I know of two children born at this time who survived for a long period of time but, as I said, they had loads of problems). Medical science is progressing at such a huge rate that an 18 week old fetus will be viable in the foreseeable future. I have know of a good many children who have survived when born at 20 - 24 weeks gestation.

Again, they will have some problems, and will have delayed milestones, but they survived nonetheless.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Magenta