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?

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.

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

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

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).



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?

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


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.


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

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.

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.



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...

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.


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


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.


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?


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


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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

So... if that's the case Mrs P, why is there a feticide law in nearly every state in the Union?
Why does the "fetus" (as some call it) have rights when it comes to interaction with the outside world, but none when in reference to the mother?


For everyone-
If it's okay for the mother to abort a pregnancy, is it ok for me to "abort" the pregnancy as well? I am responsible for taking care of a child as well, right?

What if I decide I don't want to be a father and beat the "fetus" to death? How is that different?

For the same reason a person could vountarily donate blood to another, but if you pulled out the tube and started beating the doner and the recipient died as a result, you'd be charged with murder. On the other hand, the person wouldnt be charged with murder for refusing to donate the blood in the first place, even if he/she was that recipent's only hope. Bone marrow, same thing. Dispensible organ, same thing.

I suppose we could enact a law forcing people to donate blood, organs, marrow, should the need arise, to make it 'fair' that one person can't kill another by beating them to death but they could 'kill' by refusing to donate their blood or organ or marrow. But I'd hardly call that a moral or legal comparison, and somehow the world still revolves, and a good many people do donate, even though not everyone chooses to.

Well, how would you do that without assaulting the woman, genius? I can definitely say this, until it's born, the man has absolutely no choice in the matter... unless the woman is unable to make a choice. The man's choice would be... don't be in that situation in the first place.

There are feticide laws, but they apply to those who kill a fetus when the aim was to allow it to come to term... at least, in application. There haven't, as far as I'm aware, been a case where someone did this where the mother volunteered.

There was one case a few years back. Gerardo Flores, 19 year old sentenced by jury to life in Texas. They appealed it but I'm not sure what happened with that. Of course, she was too far along to obtain a legal abortion by Texas law anyway at that time, so the comparison still falls flat.

Edited to add: It should be noted that feticide laws vary from state to state, as do abortion laws.

Erica Basoria was 4 months into the pregnancy, so she could've gotten an abortion. I wonder if she didn't have the money to pay for it. Her parents and abusive boyfriend didn't think she should have a baby.

Texas' fetal homicide law protects the unborn from the moment of conception. Quite a few states with fetal homicide laws protect zygotes/embryos/fetuses. I bet the legal protection afforded to embryos in a woman's body doesn't apply to hundreds of embryos discarded in IVF clinics over the years.

Unintended consequences should not be punished when it hurts an industry.

In the case of Gerardo Flores, there was significant evidence that the miscarriage was the result of physical abuse and that it was not the will of the mother to have an abortion.

I read that it was five months. Roe only applies to the first trimester, after that the law leans at the discretion of the state. Texas has some pretty strict abortion laws so i'd be surprised if elective abortion extends that far out.


Oh, didn't know that. Makes more sense now. Life is a pretty severe sentence.

Edited to add: Yeah, Lesly, agreed. IVF seems to be an inconsistency folks are willing to live with, for whatever reason.

If you believe in concepts such as natural law, I submit that some of those natural laws would be control over one's own health and one's own reproduction decisions. Under these natural laws, the individual with a fetus in her womb has all the protections to decide for herself what her reproductive and health decisions should be. As long as a fetus is in a person's womb, the state should have no authority.

I know this will be contrary to concepts such as viability for some. A fetus is never known for sure if it is viable until it is out of the womb. There is always a viability ambiguity while a fetus is developing and within the womb. I expect any parent who has been in a delivery room knows this all too well. The clear line of viability is not known until a fetus is detached from the mother and breathing on its own (though this is not totally all the physiology which defines functioning as an individual). Decisions in regards to the gray areas as do exist should reside with the mother under the concept of natural law, limiting government from interference with reproduction and health.

So, abortion should be legal right up to the point of birth? Or up until the umbilical cord is cut? Or up until the plugs are removed to allow it to breath?

I'm reading a little more about this case.

In 2003 Texas passed a law that 4 months into a pregnancy you could only get an abortion at a hospital, not a clinic. There's only one hospital in the state that performs abortions.

Texas' fetal homicide does not allow the state to charge a woman if she injures herself to induce a miscarriage. Basoria testified she punched herself on the stomach and asked her boyfriend to stand on her stomach. The state treated it a domestic violence incidence because that's as far as the law allows prosecutors to go, imo. I know victims of domestic abuse often defend their partner's actions, but I don't think the pattern explains what happened in this case.


I think it's partly because people going for IVF treatment are trying to have babies, instead of avoiding them. Once a couple fulfills what many regard as a religious duty to raise a child wives and husbands are off the moral hook!

Ok.... while everyone thinks my line of reasoning is absurd...
If I were to do the same as Flores, I'd get an assault charge had she not been pregnant... right?

I have no record and wouldn't do time. Flores is in prison, and according to the last article I can find, he's still there.
http://www.lufkindailynews.com/biz/content.../26/flores.html

So which is it. Should it be assault for killing an unborn child or should it be feticide?

I don't really think you can stand on both sides of the fence on this one.


This is precisely my point. It's cool if the woman didn't want the baby... but man, if she did the man should go to prison? WHAT?

Asked and answered in my above post here. You wouldn't be the first to completely ignore this point, but please respond or I'll have to assume you can't come up with a legitimate counter.

I'd really like to hear one, because after debating this subject so many many times I've never heard a legitimate counter, but I do hear the same broken record, used above (in this case by you), again and again and again.

Heck, I'll even help you out. There is one case where people can go to jail for not receiving medical treatment. If a person fails to comply with the regime of meds for TB, they can be made to take them because the consequences of untreated TB running through the population are so dire. In that case, cost-to-gains weighs on the side of the public versus individual. I don't think the mother-embryo argument at the point of conception does. But you're free to offer a counter of some other medical situation where the physical needs of one (born) individual outweigh the physical personal autonomy of another.

Edited to add: I triple dog dare you.
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you can't come up with that example. This is why the issue is so contentious. There is no other example of one person sacrificing their personal physical wellbeing and autonomy for another, under threat of law, short of pregnancy. We have laws protecting the fetus after the first trimester. That's pretty reasonable I think. Yet we still have the rants against even allowing the mother to abort if her life is in danger and the fetus is anencephalic. Any law that would give the embryo rights at conception would be insane. I'll tell you, my IUD means more to me than most anything else I own. Birth control rights are as important as property rights to women.

I am not sure what the plugs are?

Attachment via an umbilical cord outside the womb is no longer in the mother's body. The fetus is no longer in the mother's body. The cord is fetal tissue. Viability is not established but the impetus to discover it the fetus will is imminent.

There are mucal plugs that a dr/midwife etc have to remove to allow the baby to take it's first breath, they suction it out with a bulb- not all children have them intact when born, but it is usually done right before the bottom slap in order to make them take that first breath (in old school settings anyway- nonen of my kids got a birthing smack - only one was born with the mucal nasal plugs intact, and that was my youngest by c-section)

The, "yeah, I hit her in the face, but the bruises on her abdomen were from her striking herself, and the others were from 'consensual roughhousing'" argument didn't seem to fly. And, evidence was presented that she was looking forward to carrying the pregnancy to term. In essence, the other evidence and the recognition of this pattern, discredited her testimony in his defense.

But, ultimately, this isn't about whether or not Flores is innocent and was wrongly accused... he wasn't jailed because he aborted a fetus at the will of the mother, he was jailed because the evidence made it clear to the court that he killed an unborn fetus that the mother wished to carry to term. As such, I am not aware of an instance where a man was charged with "feticide" because he was performing an abortion at the will of the mother.



Newborns have organic plugs in their nose and mouth; oxygen is carried to the body through the umbilical cord - which is why infants don't drown in underwater births (they've got built-in scuba gear, if you will ). You stated that it was the mother's choice until it was detached from the mother and was breathing on its own. The infant is getting oxygen from the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. So, the infant is still "attached" to the mother until the cord is cut. Are you saying that abortion should be legal up until that point?



Again, once conception occurs, the man has very little choice. That's just a fact of life... one of those fundamental differences between the genders that just needs to be accepted.

I do not think attachment is a good definitive border. The fetus being outside the womb, outside the mother's body, seems a better delineator. At the point when the fetus has left the mother's body but still has an umbilical cord, the fetus is in the transition to becoming viable. Such a transition may or may not be successful.

Once a fetus is outside the womb, intervention by others upon the fetus, exclusive of the womb, should not have any substantial affect upon the health of the mother.

So, abortion should be legal right up to the moment of birth? Can the mother abort the fetus if labor is too painful?

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

It is hard to determine the answer to this. What level of protection does the question mean? Who takes priority, the mother or the baby.

To determine when a pregnancy is viable, I look at what makes the pregnancy viable. Sperm, egg, uterus. When all three meet, I feel that the pregnancy is viable, and in turn life begins. This is where I personally feel an abortion should not be permitted except in specific situations.

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

In today's society, it's a woman's issue. I however wish it were a family issue. aevans176 makes valid point, to a degree. I understand the premise behind what he is saying, but know that it will never equal out the way he and I would like.


A point I would like to make is that abortion isn't widely used to protect the health of either the baby or mother. It is used mainly as a form of birth control. The most common reason is to not interfere with education, work or caring for other dependents. This is what the opponents of abortion hate about abortion in the U.S. It is used as a form of birth control, and that is what opponents don't want. Birth control should be something that is done prior to having sex. Knowing that no form of birth control is 100%, if you aren't ready to have a child, don't do what it takes to have a child. In a thread I started "Mens reproductive rights", there were posts that stated such things as

And yet women can kill the unborn because it is inconvenient to have a child.

Pregnancy or fetus? Because we're talking about when a fetus is viable and not when pregnancy begins. And, of course, your definition of viability - while, again, understandable - can't be proven to be the point at which a fetus is a human being with rights.



Personally, I agree that this is a risk. And, I'm not a fan of abortions as birth control.



Opinion stated as fact, but it is her body and until it can be shown that a fetus is a human being with rights at the point when egg, sperm and uterus meet, this opinion serves as very little more than a moral belief - one to which you are entitled, to be sure, but not one that you may force others to accept.

If labor is painful there are medical treatments for such though I would discourage dependence on them if I had the ear of the mother. Abortion to terminate a pregnancy during labor is outside likely discussion as labor is the termination of pregnancy. 'Just have to do some educating if this is not apparent to the mother.

Should the mother have the right to abort the fetus at any point up to the point of birth? What if she chooses not to have the child and wants it aborted during labor? Doing some educating or no, does she have the right to terminate the fetus?

OK but the mole is obviously not a human if it was created by 2 moles and I would guess it would be impossible for one species to create another species by way of sex. No examples except maybe some war situations but I would disagree with that too. Right now as it stands I am not "for legal rights at conception" because I do think it would be quite unenforceable and I believe that your brain makes you human not only DNA. But I do like your viability proposal except that I wouldn't want to take the life of something that can think but not live on it's own and would definitely like to see prosthetic wombs come about.



Also what makes birth so significant in a persons "humaness"? I mean all that really happens is that you are released from your mothers womb. I'm sure that plenty of changes are triggered by this event especially when your umbilical cord gets cut but it would make sense that it doesn't happen instantaneously when the last of your body breaches the vagina. So it would make sense that according to people who believe that abortion should be legal up until or even during birth that you could even abort a child a few hours after birth as well.

LoL!

I'm sorry, but you made me chuckle with this. The type of mole she was referring to is not "mole" the animal, but a hydatidiform mole, which is a growth.

Well then, I am thoroughly embarrassed at my ignorance and lack of googling... but I can go with that too. That would be an unwanted piece of body which has no rights because it has no brain or consciousness. A fetus is a separate entity and not an unwanted piece of body. I am surprised that that was what you were going at because if someone really took that slant at the arguement cancer would have rights.

Well, I didn't bring it up, that was Mrs. P, if I recall correctly, and it was in response to the DNA as evidence that a child is alive argument which, it appears, was never a serious argument in the first place.

I am baffled as to your purpose in asking for a reinstatement of my opinion so many times. I have responded each time but I am not sure what answer you are searching for?

Labor is abortion of pregnancy. You could not request an abortion during labor as the abortion has already commenced.

I do see one possible new idea...if a woman chooses to have an abortion does that mean the woman can also directly kill the fetus before the fetus has had a possible chance to prove its viability? Abortions are naturally occurring as well as induced. I do not think a mother's natural rights to health and reproduction always includes total control over a fetus. A delivered fetus may be able to transition over to an independent being without extraordinary means after an abortion. A delivered fetus should have the chance to become independent and viable on its own means as long as this chance is independent from the mother's health.

Abortion, in this context, is not simply the terminating of a pregnancy, but termination of the fetus.



When I say abort the fetus, this is what I'm talking about, as this is the issue that the debate question directly deals with: not simply the termination of the pregnancy, but the termination of the fetus. The other option, if someone doesn't want the child, is to carry the pregnancy to term and put it up for adoption, but that's not what we're discussing here.

If we were simply talking about terminating the pregnancy without also terminating the fetus, I don't think there would be a pro-life/pro-choice issue.

Your previous statements seem to imply that a woman could abort the fetus right up until it's out of the womb. If she can't do it during labor, can she do it prior to labor starting? I'm basically asking what the threshold here is... where's the line?

It's proving difficult to pin you down on an answer because you keep shifting the line. At first, it was detachment and breathing, now it's not... so, where's the line?



Well, you're talking about post-delivery, and I'd agree... once it's been delivered, a mother can't kill it. I don't think you'll find anyone who would disagree.

entspeak, the definition you list is a true one but not exclusive. Abortion can be spontaneous. The dictionary I have has one definition as "induced abortion".

I guess I can not see how the definition you insists applies to the context in which you have used it applies. It is not the correct definition as it is not feasible. It is the essential of slamming on the brakes when you are motionless at a stop sign. You are too late.

I did not imply, my opinion was stated in a simple and clear manner.
as she is already doing it... yes

The natural law means of determining who has standing in making the decision seems to me to have the least ambiguity and is consistent with the concept of freedom and liberty. I do not think everyone will agree with a person and their decisions but there has to be respect for an individual to control their own being whether you agree with them or not. Those who disagree with the concept of natural ownership of one's own health and reproduction are putting the state in control of health and reproduction. To squelch privacy, to declare health and reproduction decisions to not be the privy of the individual but such decisions belong to the state is a dagger into the concept of inherent rights which exist above and superior to government.

Well, an induced abortion is quite different from induced labor... you're ignoring the destruction of the fetus. Which, if you wish to ignore that context, is your choice, but then you aren't talking about the same thing we are... you are equivocating in order to attempt to make your point make sense in this context.



Okay.

So, at any point prior to labor... which, I hope you will recognize is quite different from your initial position of "detached" from the mother and "breathing."

So, natural law and the freedom and liberty that comes with it only apply to human beings that are capable of making decisions? Even if a fetus is viable prior to the point of labor, it has no rights and it's life is completely in the hands of the mother to do with as she pleases?

The difference between a fetus having rights and the woman having rights is that reproduction is an adult process. I does seem apparent to me that an adult human has prior status over an embryo or fetus which is dependent upon the adult. Reproduction is a process initiated by an adult, maintained by the adult, and dependent upon that adult. The adult human has the reproductive rights, not the fetus.

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

I do not think induced abortion always implies destruction of the fetus. I do think labor always implies abortion of the pregnancy. Our two views of these ideas may be where we have our hiccup in communication.