Pro-lifers please shoot this down

[Cozarkian]

A child 5 seconds out of the womb is no different than a child 5 seconds before birth.

Technically, the former has lungs filled with air and the latter has lungs filled with fluid. Is that a significant difference? Probably not, which is why abortions are banned post-viability.

There's no fairy waiting with a wand at the birthing table to magically bestow rights on the child once he or she comes out.

Potentially there is the Holy Spirit entering the newborn baby when it takes the breathe of life, which I find amusing, because it makes the best unrestricted abortion argument a religious one.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm pretty sure that if I googled for supporting evidence to justify the time limit in which a pregnancy can be legally aborted, I could find a bit if I were so inclined, so I'll disagree with you there.

Just because it's a legal standard doesn't mean its not arbitrary. We just suddenly view birth as the moment at which certain rights are given. Why?

I agree with you insofar as "5 seconds before" and "5 seconds after" (as the child birth procedure has begun, womb liquid has been evacuated, etc), but how about 5 seconds after conception, and 5 seconds before birth?

How about 1 day before birth vs 5 seconds after birth?

 

[Atreus21]

Technically, the former has lungs filled with air and the latter has lungs filled with fluid. Is that a significant difference? Probably not, which is why abortions are banned post-viability.

Except in cases of harm to the mental health of the mother. Or at least that was the defense given by the liberal minority in the dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Potentially there is the Holy Spirit entering the newborn baby when it takes the breathe of life, which I find amusing, because it makes the best unrestricted abortion argument a religious one.

Children breathe amniotic fluid in the womb.

 

[Exophase]

Just because it's a legal standard doesn't mean its not arbitrary. We just suddenly view birth as the moment at which certain rights are given. Why?

Viability isn't arbitrary. The principle idea is that the mother is allowed to expel the fetus from her body, absolving her of the responsibility to use her own bodily resources to nurture it. Prior to viability, the fetus is as good as dead doing this so it's also permissible to cease any life functions of the fetus.

Maybe if there were technology to sustain the fetus artificially before the point of viability that could be argued for as an alternative. But right now there isn't.

The extension of this would be that the mother should still be able to induce birth at any point after viability. I have no idea if this is actually how the law works anywhere but that would be consistent.

This, by the way, parallels a mother's right to give up a baby for adoption and completely absolve herself of parental responsibility.

 

[mikeymikec]

It would be pointless because early miscarriages are normal.

Just like if a cancer patient dies no one would typically open a murder inquiry, because it is normal for cancer patients to die. Doesn't mean it is, or should be, legal to walk into a cancer ward and start shooting patients.

It is however considered normal to give a cancer patient pain-killing medication which is known to shorten the life of people in that patient's position.

As far as I'm aware, a miscarriage during any stage of pregnancy would not be formally investigated:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stillbirth/pages/definition.aspx

"You will also be offered an opportunity to discuss having a post-mortem examination of your baby. A post-mortem will not be done without your consent."
More information:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Stillbirth/Pages/Afterwards.aspx
"You will be offered tests to find the cause of the stillbirth. You don't need to have these, but the results may help avoid problems in any future pregnancies."

Furthermore (though admittedly I'd prefer to have a better source):

 

[Atreus21]

Viability isn't arbitrary. The principle idea is that the mother is allowed to expel the fetus from her body, absolving her of the responsibility to use her own bodily resources to nurture it. Prior to viability, the fetus is as good as dead doing this so it's also permissible to cease any life functions of the fetus.

Viability isn't arbitrary, I agree. But using it as a litmus test to determine one's worthiness to live is horrible. It's like sucking all the oxygen out of the air then saying that anyone who survives is worthy of life, and anyone who doesn't, isn't.

Also, while it's not arbitrary, it's muddy and unscientific. You can't really be certain unless you force the issue. Children have survived abortions before "viability".

Maybe if there were technology to sustain the fetus artificially before the point of viability that could be argued for as an alternative. But right now there isn't.

And therefore it's acceptable to kill them. I can't agree to that.

 

[Texashiker]

Furthermore (though admittedly I'd prefer to have a better source):

<Image removed>

Bodily autonomy huh?

Tell me again why I had to register for the draft?

Tell me again why I had to pay child support?

Tell me why I had to go to school.

It is my body, why should I be forced to do things with my body that are against my will.

We are all forced to do things we do not want to do. It is part of life, deal with it.

 

[nehalem256]

It is however considered normal to give a cancer patient pain-killing medication which is known to shorten the life of people in that patient's position.

As far as I'm aware, a miscarriage during any stage of pregnancy would not be formally investigated:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stillbirth/pages/definition.aspx

"You will also be offered an opportunity to discuss having a post-mortem examination of your baby. A post-mortem will not be done without your consent."
More information:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Stillbirth/Pages/Afterwards.aspx
"You will be offered tests to find the cause of the stillbirth. You don't need to have these, but the results may help avoid problems in any future pregnancies."

Furthermore (though admittedly I'd prefer to have a better source):

And yet a woman that is 6 months pregnant can be forced not to get an abortion.

Which means we have this perverse situation where a woman's body is hers from 0-22weeks gestation. Then from 22weeks-birth it isn't hers. Then as you point out after birth it returns to being hers again.

Also there is an important distinction between blood transfusion and abortion. Abortion is actively taking action to harm another being.

Its the difference between refusing to give food to a starving person, and shooting them in the face. One is legal, whereas the other is not.

 

[mikeymikec]

Just because it's a legal standard doesn't mean its not arbitrary.

I didn't say that. At some point it has to be arbitrary, but not in the "meaningless" sense you mean it - medical professionals and people with a legal background need to discuss the situation logically, present evidence, and come to a general agreement based on the evidence available (such as foetal development), unless someone can discover something new about the foetal development process that those professionals would agree should alter our perspective somewhat.

We just suddenly view birth as the moment at which certain rights are given. Why?

I'm seeing this more as an anthropological curiosity than anything that aids your argument. I would be willing to discuss it on that level if you wish, but if you want it in the context of this discussion then you're going to have to provide some justification for its inclusion in your argument.

How about 1 day before birth vs 5 seconds after birth?

How about you stop avoiding questions? I'm assuming that you're of the same (apparent) opinion as TH that abortion is wrong no matter what.

 

[Exophase]

Children have survived abortions before "viability".

Example?

 

[Texashiker]

Example?

Does it matter?

Is a disabled child who can not survive outside the womb without medical care any less deserving to live?

 

[Atreus21]

Example?

This child isn't an abortion survivor, but was born, and survived, 2 weeks before she was supposed to be viable, or in other words two weeks before it would've been illegal to kill her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...eks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

 

[mikeymikec]

And yet a woman that is 6 months pregnant can be forced not to get an abortion.

Which means we have this perverse situation where a woman's body is hers from 0-22weeks gestation. Then from 22weeks-birth it isn't hers. Then as you point out after birth it returns to being hers again.

Because of definitions surrounding the development of life backed up with evidence and generally agreed upon by medical professionals as well as those involved in writing the laws of a given country.

Do you want to argue about abortion being right/wrong, or about the time limit of when abortion shouldn't be allowed any more? The two are different arguments because the latter requires agreement on the former that abortion isn't just wrong.

Also there is an important distinction between blood transfusion and abortion. Abortion is actively taking action to harm another being.

Its the difference between refusing to give food to a starving person, and shooting them in the face. One is legal, whereas the other is not.

Yes, there's a distinction, but the point was valid in context. For example, a doctor who refused / neglected to treat a dying patient who then died is very likely to be generally considered as morally wrong, however, if that doctor had to give up say one of their organs to save the patient, it would not generally be considered to be the same thing.

 

[Texashiker]

Because of definitions surrounding the development of life backed up with evidence and generally agreed upon by medical professionals as well as those involved in writing the laws of a given country.

Lets not forget medical professionals also did forced sterilizations.

It is not like medical professionals have a history rich in upholding human rights.

 

[Exophase]

This child isn't an abortion survivor, but was born, and survived, 2 weeks before she was supposed to be viable, or in other words two weeks before it would've been illegal to kill her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...eks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

Okay, then in this case I see nothing wrong with lowering the standard of viability to 21 weeks. The standard could be changed to requiring a case-by-case review to determine if the fetus can survive post-delivery, and every attempt made to induce birth safely.

 

[Texashiker]

When it comes to human rights, please do not use "medical professionals" as a standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

[nehalem256]

Because of definitions surrounding the development of life backed up with evidence and generally agreed upon by medical professionals as well as those involved in writing the laws of a given country.

Do you want to argue about abortion being right/wrong, or about the time limit of when abortion shouldn't be allowed any more? The two are different arguments because the latter requires agreement on the former that abortion isn't just wrong.

If you agree that there should be some time limit then you are saying that abortion is wrong in at least some circumstances.

That would seem to be in direct contradiction to a bodily autonomy argument. Because as you claimed there is no situation where you would be expected to give up your blood or bodily organs without your consent.

 

[nehalem256]

Okay, then in this case I see nothing wrong with lowering the standard of viability to 21 weeks. The standard could be changed to requiring a case-by-case review to determine if the fetus can survive post-delivery, and every attempt made to induce birth safely.

Are you suggesting that abortions around 20 weeks should involve inducing birth safely and then waiting for the baby to die of natural causes?😵

 

[mikeymikec]

Lets not forget medical professionals also did forced sterilizations.

It is not like medical professionals have a history rich in upholding human rights.

How many lives have you saved? How many contributions have you made to the understanding of human biology through which lives have been saved? How much medical assistance have you (or your family/relatives) benefited from?

If you believe the tripe you spout, perhaps you should stop being such a hypocrite and start refusing medical assistance for yourself for the rest of your life.

 

[mikeymikec]

If you agree that there should be some time limit then you are saying that abortion is wrong in at least some circumstances.

Yes. What's your opinion?

That would seem to be in direct contradiction to a bodily autonomy argument.

I don't think it does. There are two elements involved, once a line has been drawn by the professionals I described, the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother. If a person has brought a pregnancy beyond a certain point (where the line has been drawn), then it logically follows that they have consented to take on that responsibility, at least to the next logical step being childbirth.

 

[Texashiker]

How many lives have you saved? How many contributions have you made to the understanding of human biology through which lives have been saved? How much medical assistance have you (or your family/relatives) benefited from?

If you believe the tripe you spout, perhaps you should stop being such a hypocrite and start refusing medical assistance for yourself for the rest of your life.

So the end justifies the means. Such as infecting poor black men with syphilis, and then withhold treatment? So what if blacks died, at least we got to learn something. Is that the point you are getting at?

Your so called medical professionals are not a standard to gauge human rights.

 

[alzan]

Rights protect the weak.

Isn't that what the civil rights movement was about, protecting the oppressed?

Yawn! Around and around you go. You just love arguing abortion.

Yes rights protect the weak and oppressed. Despite our best efforts, your rights are protected.

Like I said before, we live in an imperfect world with imperfect laws so just.....








.....wait for it....







Deal with it!!!!!!!!

 

[Texashiker]

Deal with it!!!!!!!!

That is what we should start telling women when they want to murder their unborn children.

You created this child, now deal with it.

 

[alzan]

That is what we should start telling women when they want to murder their unborn children.

You created this child, now deal with it.

Nah, let's transplant the fetus to the father's body and tell them "You wanted to fuck without a condom, deal with it."

 

[Bird222]

So long as she performs the abortion herself you would be correct.

Otherwise it can be regulated as a commercial activity. Thank you commerce clause :thumbsup:

Everything can't be regulated under the commerce clause otherwise we would be under total federal control. Also doesn't it have to be interstate commerce. I don't think most women are crossing state lines to get an abortion. Could be wrong though.