Sponsored Links

[ZeeSaga]

This topic will attempt to designate a time that one would legally be allowed to abort a fetus/child based on scientific events and not calendar time or religious theories. I saw an article which I can no longer find that said that abortion should be legal up until the brain is mostly developed in the average child. He proposed that that made sense because then the child would have a consciousness and therefore be human making an abortion essentially murder. First I thought that didn't make sense since not too many people claim to remember anything from before their birth but then again not many people remember much before 2-3 years of age and aborting a 2 year old is obviously out of the question. He gave the rough time of brain development at 6 weeks.
I thought that had made the most sense I have heard ever on the subject but thought I should bring it up for debate to hear other views. I can not think of any other significant events in birth besides conception and actually birth. Conception seems reasonable if scientists can not agree on an age that would define being human because it's always better safe then sorry. Birth seems way too late with the evidence showing premature births are viable. There has to be an event that changes a "fetus" to a "human", so what is it?

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?

[Aquilla]

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?

Nothing like an easy set of questions posed here for a debate. One wonders if anyone here can answer them with fewer words than the Supreme Court attempted to do in Roe V Wade. I don't know if you've read that decision or not, ZeeSaga, but if you haven't, I would strongly recommend that you do. It is a remarkable decision. And, one with which I generally agree and I am pro-life.

I think that the Supreme Court attempted in Roe V Wade to provide guidelines for future decisions on the abortion issue, recognizing that science would continue to advance and things would change over time. So, I'll use that decision as the basis for answering the questions you posed here.

One of the key elements in Roe V Wade missed by many is the fact that the Supreme Court did indeed recognize the rights of the unborn. Within that decision the court stated that the state has a compelling interest in protecting those rights, most importantly, the right to life. However, the court also recognized that the mother also had potentially competing rights as well, for example if carrying the child to term posed a serious medical threat to her own life. That part of the decision has been used by pro-abortion proponents to justify late-term abortions. So, the "when" is conditional, not absolute. Not a great answer to be sure, but then hard questions seldom have easy answers.

As far as your last two questions are concerned, we can once again go back to Roe V Wade and see who the Supreme Court consulted in making their decision. The answer to that is damn near everyone. They looked at the science, the medicine, the religious beliefs...... You name it. All of these considerations are important factors and contain dynamic factors as time goes on and we get smarter. It's a double-edged sword though. While premature babies can survive and thrive at an earlier point now than before, we can also identify fatal disorders in fetuses that could be carried to term and born alive only to die a horrible death. What to do? It is a difficult question. I don't know the answer, but I do know the answer doesn't rest with legislation. One size doesn't fit all.


Aquilla

[ZeeSaga]

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?

Nothing like an easy set of questions posed here for a debate. One wonders if anyone here can answer them with fewer words than the Supreme Court attempted to do in Roe V Wade. I don't know if you've read that decision or not, ZeeSaga, but if you haven't, I would strongly recommend that you do. It is a remarkable decision. And, one with which I generally agree and I am pro-life.

I think that the Supreme Court attempted in Roe V Wade to provide guidelines for future decisions on the abortion issue, recognizing that science would continue to advance and things would change over time. So, I'll use that decision as the basis for answering the questions you posed here.

One of the key elements in Roe V Wade missed by many is the fact that the Supreme Court did indeed recognize the rights of the unborn. Within that decision the court stated that the state has a compelling interest in protecting those rights, most importantly, the right to life. However, the court also recognized that the mother also had potentially competing rights as well, for example if carrying the child to term posed a serious medical threat to her own life. That part of the decision has been used by pro-abortion proponents to justify late-term abortions. So, the "when" is conditional, not absolute. Not a great answer to be sure, but then hard questions seldom have easy answers.

As far as your last two questions are concerned, we can once again go back to Roe V Wade and see who the Supreme Court consulted in making their decision. The answer to that is damn near everyone. They looked at the science, the medicine, the religious beliefs...... You name it. All of these considerations are important factors and contain dynamic factors as time goes on and we get smarter. It's a double-edged sword though. While premature babies can survive and thrive at an earlier point now than before, we can also identify fatal disorders in fetuses that could be carried to term and born alive only to die a horrible death. What to do? It is a difficult question. I don't know the answer, but I do know the answer doesn't rest with legislation. One size doesn't fit all.


Aquilla

I have not read the decision but I was more going for a scientific or philosophical debate but I will read it when I have the time. I guess I should have left the last question out to keep it apolitical but Oh Well. I meant for the first question to be the more in depth discussion topic. I believe this is a scientific and phychological issue rather than a religious or a womens rights issue. I would say I'm Pro-Science in this argument.

Added last sentence in edit.

This post has been edited by ZeeSaga: Aug 27 2009, 05:15 AM

[Aquilla]

I have not read the decision but I was more going for a scientific or philosophical debate but I will read it when I have the time. I guess I should have left the last question out to keep it apolitical but Oh Well. I meant for the first question to be the more in depth discussion topic. I believe this is a scientific and phychological issue rather than a religious or a womens rights issue. I would say I'm Pro-Science in this argument.

I don't think it's quite as cut and dried as that. In my case, I am a scientist by training who also holds a religious faith. The two may seem somewhat contradictory, but they aren't. One is faith, the other is science and without getting too much into religion here, I view science as an attempt to figure out how in the world God does what God does. I have two kids, and yeah I know how I "made" them. but how in the hell did they turn into people? DNA? Who came up with that idea? Science can explain the bio-chemistry to a certain extent, but it's pretty basic and leaves a whole lot of questions unanswered. So, in the context of this debate I think we need to look beyond science and find something else if we are to define "life" and legal rights and all that stuff. The Supreme Court attempted to do that when considering Roe V. Wade and I think it remains an important consideration when discussing this issue. My personal belief is that life begins when that little blob of DNA attains a soul. Danged if I know when that happens or how to measure it. My science fails me there. But, I do know it happens at some point and that's called "faith".


Aquilla

[ZeeSaga]

My personal belief is that life begins when that little blob of DNA attains a soul. Danged if I know when that happens or how to measure it. My science fails me there. But, I do know it happens at some point and that's called "faith".

Aquilla

Yes but you can't measure whether a soul exists let alone enters a living thing but you can reasonably determine when a brain is developed enough to have feelings, desires and thoughts. If you believe that we should base laws on a religious idea, such as a soul, then where do you stop? I believe you cannot make laws based on "faith" so if I were you I would use the argument to not allow any abortions on the fact that if the DNA is a humans DNA, then it is a human with all rights intact from conception, not saying your other argument is wrong it's just harder to disagree with DNA over souls. And to your earlier post about babies with fatal disorders, how can anyone say that being dead or not ever being born would be better than not living at all. I don't know if you agreed with that or not but if a baby is viable even for a second then I disagree with abortion totally with no exceptions. I can not agree with anyone thinking they can decide to end someone else's life for that person with out their permission.

[Aquilla]

Yes but you can't measure whether a soul exists let alone enters a living thing but you can reasonably determine when a brain is developed enough to have feelings, desires and thoughts. If you believe that we should base laws on a religious idea, such as a soul, then where do you stop? I believe you cannot make laws based on "faith" so if I were you I would use the argument to not allow any abortions on the fact that if the DNA is a humans DNA, then it is a human with all rights intact from conception, not saying your other argument is wrong it's just harder to disagree with DNA over souls. And to your earlier post about babies with fatal disorders, how can anyone say that being dead or not ever being born would be better than not living at all. I don't know if you agreed with that or not but if a baby is viable even for a second then I disagree with abortion totally with no exceptions. I can not agree with anyone thinking they can decide to end someone else's life for that person with out their permission.

I'm not saying you should base law on strictly religious grounds, but in this particular case, those grounds do need to be considered and indeed they were in Roe V Wade. While it's true we can measure brain activity in an unborn child, I don't think we can determine from an EEG what constitutes a "desire" or a "thought" anymore than we can determine what constitutes a "soul". This is a difficult debate because there are no black and white decisions. Science is useful to be sure, but I don't think it offers all the answers on this subject.


Aquilla

[Lesly]

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?
When it can survive outside the womb.

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?
Women's issue, unless science and philosophy can get pregnant and give birth.

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?
Voters. There are many laws that brush scientific debate, but all three branches of government write/pass/interpret the law without scientific stamps of approval.

Zee, I wish you could find that article. Was it written by a "Dr. Jack Dean" based on a speech called "Life and Death by EEG" given by Dr. Hannibal Hamlin in 1964 and recorded in JAMA by chance?

Yes, there's neural activity in the brain shortly after conception, but what does it mean? Most (non pro-life) doctors think a fetus doesn't feel pain until five months. A fetus's brain cannot regulate it's own body temperature until 7.5 months, when ridges form on the brain's surface and the body sheds lanugo. Brain activity equals life, inside or outside the skull.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Aug 27 2009, 02:14 PM

[aevans176]

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?
When it can survive outside the womb.

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?
Women's issue, unless science and philosophy can get pregnant and give birth.

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?
Voters. There are many laws that brush scientific debate, but all three branches of government write/pass/interpret the law without scientific stamps of approval.

Zee, I wish you could find that article. Was it written by a "Dr. Jack Dean" based on a speech called "Life and Death by EEG" given by Dr. Hannibal Hamlin in 1964 and recorded in JAMA by chance?

Yes, there's neural activity in the brain shortly after conception, but what does it mean? Most (non pro-life) doctors think a fetus doesn't feel pain until five months. A fetus's brain cannot regulate it's own body temperature until 7.5 months, when ridges form on the brain's surface and the body sheds lanugo. Brain activity equals life, inside or outside the skull.

To answer the question- never. Abortion is part of American life that truly even is too much for many Western Europeans. Aside from Russia- we're #1 in the baby killing department.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo-health-abortions

Ok... this is the brilliant double standard of feminists in my opinion, but my wife is 15 (or 16.... I can't keep up) weeks pregnant. Inside her is a baby that has fingers and toes, formed organs, etc.

In the State of Texas, if I punch her in the belly (or cause other injury) that kills the "fetus" (aka Baby), I go to jail for feticide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide

If she drives to an abortion clinic it's just the right of a woman in Texas to do what would send me to prison.

So tell me this, if it's not a life with rights, why does the law interpret it that way? Why can't I punch her in the belly and get a domestic abuse charge instead of a prison sentence? (Not that I'd ever consider hitting her... but for arguments sake)

Finally- voters didn't make this decision. I find few pro-choice people in America that would suggest that an open vote across the US happen. Abortion is a sticky subject even in liberal circles, but Roe V Wade gave basically women carte blache to murder babies according to many state laws (if the roles were reversed).

While it's true we can measure brain activity in an unborn child, I don't think we can determine from an EEG what constitutes a "desire" or a "thought" anymore than we can determine what constitutes a "soul". This is a difficult debate because there are no black and white decisions. Science is useful to be sure, but I don't think it offers all the answers on this subject.

This is where I believe liberals get stuck in the debate.
When can the baby survive outside of the womb? When is a life "viable"? The funny thing is that if we were to argue semantics, babies (toddlers, etc) still require around the clock care. If we wanted to drop infants on the side of the road, should that be legal? They really cannot survive without the care of someone. I really wonder at what age a child could survive.

If I wanted to throw a baby out my window like a candy wrapper, is that ok?
I realize many people will discount this as callous or absurd, but the truth is that inside or outside of the womb, a baby/fetus still requires constant care for significant periods of time...

When is the "line" in the sand drawn?

The idea of using science to murder "fetuses" is truly abhorrid in my opinion. If it were truly a "scientific" debate and revolved around the rights of a woman, why does the rest of Western Society not have abortions at the same rate as the US?

This post has been edited by aevans176: Aug 27 2009, 04:21 PM

[Lesly]

To answer the question- never. Abortion is part of American life that truly even is too much for many Western Europeans. Aside from Russia- we're #1 in the baby killing department.

In total number of abortions yes, we're #2. Per capita? Maybe not.

Ok... this is the brilliant double standard of feminists in my opinion, but my wife is 15 (or 16.... I can't keep up) weeks pregnant. Inside her is a baby that has fingers and toes, formed organs, etc. In the State of Texas, if I punch her in the belly (or cause other injury) that kills the "fetus" (aka Baby), I go to jail for feticide.

Do not credit feminists for feticide laws and then say, "Aha! Double standard!" We're only interested in baby killing, remember? Pro-lifers pushed the pass these laws, not pro-choicers. We argued, rightfully, that all they would do is chip away at abortion rights. I'm not responsible for pro-life legislation and don't like being used in your false argument of feminist hypocrisy.

If it were truly a "scientific" debate and revolved around the rights of a woman, why does the rest of Western Society not have abortions at the same rate as the US?

Perhaps because

• Land masses for other Western states aren't as large as ours is and their populations are smaller
• Other Western states have socialized health care and better welfare programs
• 6 out of 10 mothers in other Western states don't feel they don't have to choose between rationing opportunity and decreasing the standard of living for their existing children if they get pregnant

This post has been edited by Lesly: Aug 27 2009, 04:55 PM

[AuthorMusician]

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

Upon birth as defined by the state. I'm okay with the laws as they are.

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?

It's an issue between women, their immediate families and their doctors. It's the same for end-of-life care. The interesting thing is that the critics of the health bill claim they don't want government interference with health care issues. Huh.

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?

How to define legal existence within the state? That's politicians with their laws, governments with their certificates. We live in a representative democracy, so we all get a say too. Seems pretty fair to me.

If we go on when the brain fully develops, that would be (generally) somewhere in the mid-twenties when people go, "Hey, Mom and/or Dad were right after all!" Not a good scientific metric of birth.

If a fetus is born and dies immediately, or is still-born and no government certificate was ever generated, did the fetus ever exist? Not in the eyes of the state. Possibly in medical records. Certainly in the mind of the mother, probably the father, possibly other family members. For most fetuses, I've not been aware of their existence. It's not an issue that bothers me. I am more bothered by adult deaths, say in Iraq and Iran.

One thing that can be said about legal abortion -- we can compile stats, the information is available. That is not so in states that keep abortion illegal, forcing it underground. If we were to make abortion illegal (again), it would force the same situation and we'd be wholly blind regarding the underground activity, except for the corpses of mothers.

[aevans176]

Perhaps because

• Land masses for other Western states aren't as large as ours is and their populations are smaller
• Other Western states have socialized health care and better welfare programs
• 6 out of 10 mothers in other Western states don't feel they don't have to choose between rationing opportunity and decreasing the standard of living for their existing children if they get pregnant

I don't see how smaller populations and land masses make a difference, nor do I see how you've proven that per capita anyone but Russia kills more babies/fetuses. If you prove a per capita difference, then I think you might have a point.

You haven't shown that, and until, we really have to stand behind the fact that we're #2 in the world in this category.

In terms of better socialized healthcare or programs, I agree that it might be easier and less expensive- but from a moral or legal perspective it's a moot point. Truth is, if it was truly a debate among civilized nations about whether killing fetuses was ok- I'm sure that Western Cultures would make the list. They don't. Not one really. How many women in the UK right now are having babies they didn't plan?

How many women in the US are aborting pregnancies today because they don't want to get fat or have to stop dating/partying, etc?

Having an abortion in the US isn't just about cost, but convenience. How many women have abortions but have health care that makes having a baby inexpensive? No one knows, because no one keeps those stats. Why? They'd be horrific.

Do not credit feminists for feticide laws and then say, "Aha! Double standard!" We're only interested in baby killing, remember? Pro-lifers pushed the pass these laws, not pro-choicers. We argued, rightfully, that all they would do is chip away at abortion rights. I'm not responsible for pro-life legislation and don't like being used in your false argument of feminist hypocrisy.

I'm sorry that you've been offended, but it's just true. If there was a true feminist movement to have feticide laws negated, we'd hear about it. Can you imagine a feminist standing on capitol hill shouting that a man in prison who killed his unborn child should be let free?

No. It just doesn't happen Lesly and you know it.
It is a double standard. Point blank, and I think if you looked at the graph, most states clearly agree. Why? Well, because the USSC hasn't (and won't) strike these laws down like they did anti-abortion laws.

I think that point in itself says where Americans votes lie. If we allow those laws to be on the books, and make not attempt to oppose them, then by that fact alone I'd say most people believe that if I've killed an unborn baby (15 weeks or not), that I'm a murderer.

It's really too bad that this isn't true with an abortion...

[Lesly]

Perhaps because

• Land masses for other Western states aren't as large as ours is and their populations are smaller
• Other Western states have socialized health care and better welfare programs
• 6 out of 10 mothers in other Western states don't feel they don't have to choose between rationing opportunity and decreasing the standard of living for their existing children if they get pregnant

I don't see how smaller populations and land masses make a difference, nor do I see how you've proven that per capita anyone but Russia kills more babies/fetuses. If you prove a per capita difference, then I think you might have a point.

You think a bigger population has nothing to do with higher total abortions? Okay. Our first place as the nation with the highest incarceration rates on the planet means we're the most anti-social society.

[F]rom a moral or legal perspective it's a moot point.

Circumstances and context is all moot from a moral standpoint for anti-choicers. That's the problem.

Truth is, if it was truly a debate among civilized nations about whether killing fetuses was ok - I'm sure that Western Cultures would make the list. They don't. Not one really. How many women in the UK right now are having babies they didn't plan?

It sounds like you're making an argument that, if given a choice, Western states wouldn't legalize abortion if given a chance? Well, I guess they do think it's okay, Aevans, because guess what? It's legal! Frame the question as "Is killing babies in the womb okay?" and you'd get the same result.

How many women in the US are aborting pregnancies today because they don't want to get fat or have to stop dating/partying, etc?

I don't know. Why don't you point out the ultra slutty sluts for us? Give us a percentage, a demographic, something. Are they more likely to be lap dancers or church ladies?

How many women have abortions but have health care that makes having a baby inexpensive?

Giving birth is relatively inexpensive compared to raising a child. Get a handle on your myopia.

I'm sorry that you've been offended, but it's just true. If there was a true feminist movement to have feticide laws negated, we'd hear about it. Can you imagine a feminist standing on capitol hill shouting that a man in prison who killed his unborn child should be let free?

Yep. Feminists never rallied against these laws. Like Feminist Majority Foundation:

Abortion rights groups opposed the measure as a backdoor attack on abortion rights, because the language of the bill defined the victim of feticide as an "unborn child at any state of its development." The bill passed in the Virginia House of Delegates 63 to 36, but the Senate committee's action effectively blocks the legislation for the entire session.

Planned Parenthood:

Organizations like Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation . . . oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act because they say that by legally enshrining fetal personhood it undermines Roe v. Wade.

And even yours truly:

The conservative argument that this bill is about two victims is a fortunate smokescreen for eroding abortion rights. A similar bill that doesn't recognize fetal rights could just as easily hold up under judicial scrutiny, if not more easily.

Eh. Feel free to talk to yourself and burnish your moral creds in your father-knows-best voice. I know how this is gonna end and I have to pack. Besides, nobody knows feminism better than an anti-choice conservative.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Aug 27 2009, 06:46 PM

[BaphometsAdvocat...]

PREAMBLE

To me, just me maybe, an abortion is the last in a string of really bad decisions (when not performed for a medically compelled reason.) It is the desperate fix to some sequence of events that appear to be so dire the only resolution is the death of something. I know about abortions the way any man does as an observer. I'm pretty observant though and I haven't met too many people for whom it "fixed" anything. All of them, even my X wife who had a tubular pregnancy with our first attempt at our son, and was medically compelled to have a DNC to remove the fetus, have had massive (massive) regrets about the decision. Perhaps I don't know enough sociopaths who can order the death of a person and feel nothing afterwards.

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

The best case scenario should be at the start of the second trimester. I'm not a doctor nor do I play one on TV, it just "seems" like that would be a reasonable time to me.

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?

Not to get all Men's Rights here, but women are simply not the only people who are effected by abortion. I understand I am not carrying the baby. I'm simply suggesting as a DNA partner my rights (as a man) should be considered as well. That said if science can decipher when viability is achieved then science would win.

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?

I don't trust politicians to come up with a plan to pave the road outside my apartment building. Scientists.

[Paladin Elspeth]

How many women in the US are aborting pregnancies today because they don't want to get fat or have to stop dating/partying, etc?

Just an observation: It isn't always a woman who decides that abortion is the best option. There are men who have mistresses who urge their mistresses to get abortions and put up the money for them.

In addition, just why would a woman have an abortion because she didn't want to get fat and unattractive? Would it possibly be because she fears that her man or men in general would reject her?

It isn't just all on the woman.

Now I'll butt out.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Aug 27 2009, 08:00 PM

[vsrenard]

This is where I believe liberals get stuck in the debate.
When can the baby survive outside of the womb? When is a life "viable"? The funny thing is that if we were to argue semantics, babies (toddlers, etc) still require around the clock care. If we wanted to drop infants on the side of the road, should that be legal? They really cannot survive without the care of someone. I really wonder at what age a child could survive.

If I wanted to throw a baby out my window like a candy wrapper, is that ok?
I realize many people will discount this as callous or absurd, but the truth is that inside or outside of the womb, a baby/fetus still requires constant care for significant periods of time...

When is the "line" in the sand drawn?

These are two different scenarios. When a fetus is in the womb, the ONLY person who can nourish it is the mother. It is completely dependent on her. Until it's viable outside of the womb, when anyone can care for it. The distinction between 'the only person' and 'anyone' is significant.

[entspeak]

When do you think a child/fetus should be protected by law?

I think Roe v. Wade set a standard that is reasonable considering the controversy. It also has a self-destruct mechanism: it was recognized that if it can be shown that a child is alive, then abortion of that child would be illegal. Unfortunately, this must rely upon science for a determination.

Is this really a woman's issue or a science issue or perhaps even a philosophical issue?\

It really is all of the above. It is a difficult issue for anyone... I don't believe anyone is interested in murdering babies.

What group of people can be trusted to come up with this answer, scientists or politicians?

Politicians are ill-equipped to come up with such an answer, which is why they rely upon scientists. For the moment, the status quo is reasonable to me, but I believe that as we progress scientifically it certainly is possible that we may arrive at the conclusion that a child is alive at the moment of conception... it's possible. Should that occur, then I think everyone would agree that abortion should be illegal except in cases where it is choosing between the life of the mother or the life of the child. However, if that point is not reached, I believe that the current "viability" standard is a reasonable way to approach it.

And, to be clear, viability in this situation refers to the fetus's ability to remain alive without the aid of the womb... without the need to remain inside the mother. Yes, infants need care, but this is not what is meant by viability in this context.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Aug 27 2009, 09:25 PM

[ZeeSaga]

Not to get all Men's Rights here, but women are simply not the only people who are effected by abortion. I understand I am not carrying the baby. I'm simply suggesting as a DNA partner my rights (as a man) should be considered as well. That said if science can decipher when viability is achieved then science would win.

I agree with most of your post but this part. It has nothing to do with either the man or the woman, it has to do with the viability and "humanness" of the child/fetus.

These are two different scenarios. When a fetus is in the womb, the ONLY person who can nourish it is the mother. It is completely dependent on her. Until it's viable outside of the womb, when anyone can care for it. The distinction between 'the only person' and 'anyone' is significant.

OK just because she is the only one feeding the baby/fetus does not mean that it has no rights. If we could figure out how to make an artificial womb for a fetus/child would you still believe that the woman had a right to abort?

[vsrenard]

These are two different scenarios. When a fetus is in the womb, the ONLY person who can nourish it is the mother. It is completely dependent on her. Until it's viable outside of the womb, when anyone can care for it. The distinction between 'the only person' and 'anyone' is significant.

OK just because she is the only one feeding the baby/fetus does not mean that it has no rights. If we could figure out how to make an artificial womb for a fetus/child would you still believe that the woman had a right to abort?

Is the artificial womb able to accommodate a transferred fetus at 6 weeks? A zygote? To be honest, I am not sure it matters because I was speaking of the developmental process of the fetus. Each person draws a line as to where she thinks real life starts. For me it's viability. I am not sure scientific breakthroughs have a 1:1 correlation with that viability timeline.

[entspeak]

OK just because she is the only one feeding the baby/fetus does not mean that it has no rights. If we could figure out how to make an artificial womb for a fetus/child would you still believe that the woman had a right to abort?

Actually, this is an interesting question. Premature births are something to consider. They, on occasion, require technology to allow the fetus to survive outside the womb. Could an artificial womb make the determination of viability something that occurs much sooner than it is currently? Obviously, this technology does not exist, so it is impossible to say at what point a fetus could be transplanted to such a device.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Aug 28 2009, 05:48 AM

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Yes but you can't measure whether a soul exists let alone enters a living thing but you can reasonably determine when a brain is developed enough to have feelings, desires and thoughts. If you believe that we should base laws on a religious idea, such as a soul, then where do you stop? I believe you cannot make laws based on "faith" so if I were you I would use the argument to not allow any abortions on the fact that if the DNA is a humans DNA, then it is a human with all rights intact from conception, not saying your other argument is wrong it's just harder to disagree with DNA over souls.

A hydatidiform mole has 'all human' DNA too. Does it receive rights from conception? That the 'scientific' answer? And since the mother has DNA too, how do her human rights fall into this? I'm unaware of any law that forces a person to donate their body for any other situation (even to save the life of another). Please come up with an example, if you can...it's great to donate blood, but medical personel can't strap anyone down and forcibly take their blood for another in need, and that's just a very temporary inconvenience by comparison to pregnancy.

Laws are based on nuance, not on DNA (thank God! I read about that concept in a Brave New World). They're also based on practicality of enforcement. And I can't think of anything scarier than a society that gives the fetus human and legal rights at conception. Lots of the best forms of birth control would go out the window. Lots of women would be trying to abort at home, with objects and mixtures of chemicals that are toxic. So we'd likely deal with a rash of induced birth defects. All to give the embryo legal rights. No thanks. Viability is the best measure. As technology advances, and younger and younger fetuses become viable, the gestational duration when abortions are permitted should lower as well. There can't be a perfect law or answer to this because humans aren't perfect. But viability is the best answer, measured against the drawbacks, that we have at this time.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Aug 28 2009, 01:04 PM