Ladies, how do you feel about this?

[kallend 2,070]

Quote

in John's defense I can assure you he is all for himself being euthanised when he is no longer a contributing member of society.

When I reach the point of being unable to support myself I shall be happy to check out. I rather fancy being shot by a jealous husband on my 105th birthday.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,033]

>I think it is murder for quite a while before birth.

I agree. I think the only time aborting a viable fetus (25+ weeks) should be considered is when the mother's life is at stake. At the other end of the spectrum, before the fertilized egg implants, it is most certainly _not_ murder - most fertilized eggs don't even implant, and thus won't even start developing into a human.

So the question is where to draw the line. Brain activity starts at about 10 weeks, and that's one way we determine whether a comatose patient should be kept on life support - so it seems valid to use the same standard to determine whether a fetus has the same sort of right to life.

[Girlfalldown 0]

I'm not saying that at all. It's just strange that the govornment says when and where killing is ok. It gives a lot of mixed messages. It's ok to go kill men and women we don't know in other countries and to have our soldiers die for our country but it's not ok for a rape victim to have an abortion. How is that ok?

As for when it should be illegal I think that's also up to the personal situation. So I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the first trimester? Actually I think that might be the only time they will allow them anyway unless there's another issue such as down syndrome or something. I don't know this for sure though so don't quote me. Again I'm not saying I think abortion should be a way of birth control. I just believe it's my choice, not yours.

--------------

(Do not, I repeat DO NOT, take my posts seriously.)

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Maybe the first trimester? ...I just believe it's my choice, not yours.

Either you think it should be illegal at some point before birth or you don't. If it should only be the mother's choice, then I think you should say that it should never be illegal.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[wmw999 2,485]

I think murder is a specific term that should have a legal meaning; it applies to a post-birth person.

Does that mean a new term for the deliberate killing of a viable unborn child? Maybe. Or maybe we co-opt. But otherwise, what do you call the termination of a pregnancy (such as an anencephalic one) which will end with a very quick death? Murder is not the right term.

In protecting the fetus, we sometimes forget the mother.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Girlfalldown 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe the first trimester? ...I just believe it's my choice, not yours.

Either you think it should be illegal at some point before birth or you don't. If it should only be the mother's choice, then I think you should say that it should never be illegal.

I like how you took one sentence and then put it with another and cut out everything I wrote in the middle.

I do think there should be a point when it should be illegal but I don't know when that is.

--------------

(Do not, I repeat DO NOT, take my posts seriously.)

[wmw999 2,485]

Quote

I do think there should be a point when it should be illegal but I don't know when that is.

I agree. The point will have to be legally and arbitrarily decided in the long run. And, because the exact date of impregnation cannot be determined most of the time, there will have to be a way to ensure that it's not used as a bludgeon ("she was 16 weeks and 1 day pregnant -- arrest her ass and throw it in jail")

The cost of exhaustive tests on the fetus or embryo will make proving a particular developmental point too expensive.

There isn't a good answer. The best answer is to make reliable birth control the easiest thing in the world to get, and that won't be perfect. But it will reduce the opportunities.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Icon134 0]

I Know I'm not a lady... but I tend to lean towards pro-choice.

Although for the most part abortion isn't an issue that I've ever needed to make a choice about (yea or nay)

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

>I think it is murder for quite a while before birth.

I agree. I think the only time aborting a viable fetus (25+ weeks) should be considered is when the mother's life is at stake. At the other end of the spectrum, before the fertilized egg implants, it is most certainly _not_ murder - most fertilized eggs don't even implant, and thus won't even start developing into a human.

So the question is where to draw the line. Brain activity starts at about 10 weeks, and that's one way we determine whether a comatose patient should be kept on life support - so it seems valid to use the same standard to determine whether a fetus has the same sort of right to life.

This is very reasonable and along the lines of where I stand on it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe the first trimester? ...I just believe it's my choice, not yours.

Either you think it should be illegal at some point before birth or you don't. If it should only be the mother's choice, then I think you should say that it should never be illegal.

I like how you took one sentence and then put it with another and cut out everything I wrote in the middle.

I do think there should be a point when it should be illegal but I don't know when that is.

The reason I cut out the stuff in the middle was that I think those two positions are not compatible. The extra dots/periods are there to acknowledge that stuff was edited out.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

in John's defense I can assure you he is all for himself being euthanised when he is no longer a contributing member of society.

When I reach the point of being unable to support myself I shall be happy to check out. I rather fancy being shot by a jealous husband on my 105th birthday.

Yes, Jubal.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[chaoskitty 0]

A friend of mine had two anencephalic pregnancies .. in a row. These were her first attempts at having a child, and it almost killed her and her husband to terminate the pregnancies but they had no choice.
They have since had 2 healthy baby boys.

[windcatcher 0]

Why can't the child at least be given at chance to live, EVEN if he/she has a defect? You know, some babies born with defects can overcome and actually contribute to society. I just heard in my developmental psych class of a woman who was autistic, and ended up going on to higher education.

Defect or no defect, let the child live; at least give them a chance.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[Girlfalldown 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe the first trimester? ...I just believe it's my choice, not yours.

Either you think it should be illegal at some point before birth or you don't. If it should only be the mother's choice, then I think you should say that it should never be illegal.

I like how you took one sentence and then put it with another and cut out everything I wrote in the middle.

I do think there should be a point when it should be illegal but I don't know when that is.

The reason I cut out the stuff in the middle was that I think those two positions are not compatible. The extra dots/periods are there to acknowledge that stuff was edited out.

No, the first sentence is in regards to when it should be allowed. The second one was on the issue of abortions being legal at all.

--------------

(Do not, I repeat DO NOT, take my posts seriously.)

[windcatcher 0]

Quote

strange that I didn't realize that it is against the CHRISTIAN FAITH TO DONATE ORGANS!!!

What in the world? Who told you this and where does it say in the Bible not to donate organs? I am a Christian and would donate if given the chance. It's not against the Bible to donate; it may be some Christians think that, which I don't know why...but not all of us think that way.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[Vallerina 2]

This is probably an insanely gross question, but I am curious. How do you feel about suicide? If someone was forced into being born, was brought up in miserable conditions, and didn't want to live, would you support them in ending their life? If they were forced to be in a situation which made them incredibly depressed, should they have the right to end their own life?

I can understand why people don't want to see women having abortions. Many people think that it is wrong. I think there are lots of things that are wrong, but it doesn't mean that these things should be illegal just because they go against my morals.

Not that I think the government should ever tell a woman what her reproductive rights are, but if a government isn't even willing to provide birth control or pap smears, why should they get to pick and choose which parts of the reproductive process they control? Heck...birth control isn't even over the counter. And let's not even get into the lack of sex ed in schools.

I doubt I would ever have an abortion. Some of my good friends have, and that is 100% their decision. I would've supported them no matter what they chose to do. Their lives...their bodies. They knew that they were making the best decision for themselves and for the fathers. I do not see how their decisions have to do with anyone else at all.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[windcatcher 0]

I would do everything possible to help a suicidal person.

Life is a gift

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[Vallerina 2]

I would, too (hence, why I did the Crisis Line thing.) Let's say that someone is born into miserable conditions whether that's poverty, disorder, etc. They are depressed because of it. They are in pain constantly. Their parents would've chosen to have an abortion, but they were forced into giving birth.

I'm definitely not one for advocating suicide. But if you're going to force someone to be brought up in horrible conditions, what other kinds of options do you give them?

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[billvon 3,033]

>Why can't the child at least be given at chance to live, EVEN if
>he/she has a defect?

Anencephalic fetuses effectively have no cerebrums, which means no higher brain functions. No thinking, talking, sensing, seeing - ever. They will be as sensate as plants, though their hearts may beat for months. The only real reason to 'give them a chance to live' is as organ/tissue donors. They will need continuous life support to live outside the uterus at all, even for a short time.

Would you argue that the body of a decapitated accident victim be kept alive as long as possible, if somehow they could keep the body going? To "give him a chance?" Does being alive with no brain even have any meaning, other than from a purely biological viewpoint?

>I just heard in my developmental psych class of a woman who was
>autistic, and ended up going on to higher education.

We're not talking about autism here. Autism is perfectly healthy compared to anencephaly; google Temple Grandin.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

>I think it is murder for quite a while before birth.

I agree. I think the only time aborting a viable fetus (25+ weeks) should be considered is when the mother's life is at stake. At the other end of the spectrum, before the fertilized egg implants, it is most certainly _not_ murder - most fertilized eggs don't even implant, and thus won't even start developing into a human.

So the question is where to draw the line. Brain activity starts at about 10 weeks, and that's one way we determine whether a comatose patient should be kept on life support - so it seems valid to use the same standard to determine whether a fetus has the same sort of right to life.

Brain activity in a developing fetus is a different issue than brain activity in a person on life support. Impulses traveling between neurons in a developing fetus that have never developed any "higher" cognition--self-awareness for instance--just aren't as meaningful as those impulses traveling between neurons in a person's brain who has already lived.

In the latter, the brain has developed....the person has had the capacity of thought. In the former, the impulses have never been more than impulses. No thought or meaningful existence has ever been part of that equation.

I don't like abortion, but I also don't consider it murder by any stretch to abort a fetus at 10 weeks. At 10 weeks a fetus doesn't have feeling or knowledge....doesn't have qualities that make one human. In the 3rd trimester it does. There is a line in there somewhere. I'd have to review my embryology to discuss it more intelligently....

I think that to make laws about abortion, we need to use objective evidence to discuss when a fetus becomes a person with rights equal to its mother's. Emotion is not sufficient to guide these kinds of decisions, imho....but that's exactly what does guide most of these discussions.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 3,033]

>At 10 weeks a fetus doesn't have feeling or knowledge....

Right, but some brain activity has started. I don't know if 10 weeks is the right time to call it a legal human, but I think _earlier_ than that you have a very good argument that it isn't, because there is almost no neural activity - so it can't possibly have any kind of a mind.

After 25 weeks it's usually viable, so that's where I would put the cutoff for anything except medical risk to the mother.

Between those two limits is where I think you could reasonably set a date at which the fetus becomes legally human. I don't know exactly where it should be, though.

[eeneR 3]

Quote

I can understand why people don't want to see women having abortions. Many people think that it is wrong. I think there are lots of things that are wrong, but it doesn't mean that these things should be illegal just because they go against my morals.

And this right here says it all....I highlighted the key statement here.

It is unfair to anyone to force your personal beliefs and morals on others. We are free to choose what we think is right for us, not what someone else thinks we need to do when they are not in our shoes.

Edited to bold statement..duh

She is not a "Dumb Blonde" - She is a "Light-Haired Detour Off The Information Superhighway."
eeneR
TF#72, FB#4130, Incauto

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Defect or no defect, let the child live; at least give them a chance.

Anencephaly = no brain. No brain = no chance.

A few others:

Cyclopia = the brain doesn't divide properly. develops with only one eye, nose is a tube shaped thing above the eye. Cyclopia is "incompatable with life." Chances of survival are zero. Not "close to zero", but ZERO.

Exencephaly = a condition in which the brain is located outside of the skull. This condition is usually found in embryos as an early stage of anencephaly. As an exencephalic pregnancy progresses, the neural tissue gradually degenerates. The defect is incompatible with survival.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I can understand why people don't want to see women having abortions. Many people think that it is wrong. I think there are lots of things that are wrong, but it doesn't mean that these things should be illegal just because they go against my morals.

Not "just because they go against my morals", but because there are many ways in which the intentional killing of a living human being is considered illegal.

If you think it is not a living human worth this protection until the moment of birth, then your position makes sense.

Quote

Their lives...their bodies. They knew that they were making the best decision for themselves and for the fathers. I do not see how their decisions have to do with anyone else at all.

Are there any states where fathers have a say in this at all?

It all comes down to when it is a life worth protection like any other.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Dolph 0]

Perhaps you can make decisions about what is essentially a parasite (to some) within your own body and let others decide what to do about what's in theirs?


parasite
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host.


A fetus could, should one be so inclined, be defined as a parasite. But that's just a funny twist to the discussion for me. I don't like parasites, human or not. The law prevents me from eradicating human parasites that directly affect me. I do have some success in the merciless slaughter of non human parasites.


I do not have any personal motives for banning or allowing abortions; I'm a man so this situation is extremely unlikely to apply to me. Can only happen by proxy.

At any rate, some argue that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances. Mother's life in danger. Rape. Severly handicapped children.

If one is of the opinion that a fetus is a person or child, then it is so regardless of all three things mentioned. These exceptions hold no relevance to whether terminating the pregnancy is ok or not - it would be killing of a child/person regardless of the circumstances leading up to or during the pregnancy.

It's basically just being inconsistent about one's views.

One of them really brings in an interesting question though; who's life is worth more? The unborn child (let's go with that definition) or the mothers? Are we not all equal in theory under the law, if granted personhood etc? This would suggest that nothing should or can legally be done in favour of either person, some argue. Others argue that if one person is endangering another, this person can be terminated. There's precedence for that view.

Whatever your views, my opinion is that one better remain consistent.