Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cristynfaye on November 4, 2011 at 3:42pm

I tend to agree with you.  I have known a couple of guys who have had girlfriends in the past have abortions, and it haunted them.  If it was me in that position, I would definitely talk to the father, unless he was a complete bastard, like abusive or something.  But I do think that men should at least have some rights in making the decision.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on November 4, 2011 at 9:46pm

I think that it is admirable to discuss it with the other person, if the situation is amenable to that discussion.  I felt hurt and betrayed when I was not consulted about an abortion years ago.  I never felt I had the right to be consulted, however.  I much later discovered that it was very likely not even mine in the first place. I've been more haunted by the betrayal of trust on many levels than the actual abortion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Rowley on November 4, 2011 at 3:36pm

@Reggie Just because the point of viability is mutable does not make it a poor measure. Each case should be judged entirely on its own merits within limits set by law. There is no cookie cutter solution to this argument, it is a very subjective issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on November 4, 2011 at 5:30pm

I'm not sure how it is a subjective matter outside of the realm of personal opinions.  It is a complex and oft debated matter, but not a subjective one.  One person's legal abortion can't be another person's murder in a legal construct. That the issue is to apply an objective point to the issue does make viability a poor marker because we know it to be variable.  Whatever limits are set by the law must, by necessity, have an objective nature about it. If viability is pushed back to conception, will we charge fertility services with mass murder? Perhaps retroactively if the technology advances faster than statute of limitations run out?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shabaka Tecumseh on November 4, 2011 at 8:14pm

Limits set by law?  ummmm...christian lawmakers or secular or both?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on November 4, 2011 at 5:18pm

Yes "life" begins at conception. But there are two points that anti-choicers are in denial about 1. The medical establishment considers that life to be a pregnancy only when it has implanted in the uterus. 2. The life of a blastocyst is real but its life is on the same level as a bacterium. Is it biologically human? Yes it is. Is it a person? No it isn't ... at least it isn't a full person yet. It has no cognitive functioning, no awareness and none of the higher order processes to be considered for personhood. We are our brains. Personhood depends upon higher order brain functioning of emotions, the ability to think, form relationships, make basic decisions, interpret ones environment, and most importantly possess an individual personality. Without our brains we have none of this. Blastocysts don't have brains. Case closed. A better case could be made for giving personhood to a guinea pig than a blastocyst.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Rowley on November 4, 2011 at 5:42pm

I stand by my point but perhaps it warrants further explanation...
By subjective I mean that each subject should be judged on its own merits. If you take for example a woman in her mid 50s who is unintentionally pregnant and whose foetus shows very early signs of Downs Syndrome against the foetus of a healthy athletic 25 year old who wants an abortion because a child would ruin her lifestyle: at 20 weeks into their pregnancy, the rules for viability are not the same. Whilst the healthy foetus might have a chance at survival at 20 weeks, the Downs foetus would likely have only a very slim chance of survival at 24 weeks, never mind 20.

What I'm trying to say (and not very successfully!!!) is that there is no objective method when it comes to abortions. There should be guidelines and limits yes...but a cookie cutter methodology or a defined point at which ALL pregnancies must carry to term is not a realistic expectation. Every human is different, every pregnancy is different...every abortion should be treated in such a context.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on November 4, 2011 at 9:34pm

I think I get what you are saying.  That there are myriad circumstances that would lead to a woman considering an abortion and they are not all created equal.  I agree with that.  But, my point is that this is all moot when it comes to the reproductive rights of women.  Rights are not granted selectively based on a case by case basis. Rights are not bestowed based on mitigating criteria; you have the right or you don't.

 

It is not much different than free speech rights.  We don't grant that to some people because we have estimated their words to be worthy while denying others on a case by case basis.  It doesn't matter what the words are or whether we find value in them or not.  Freedom of speech is a right all enjoy regardless of how those words are judged.  Similarly, it doesn't matter what reason a woman has for aborting a pregnancy.  She has that right and as long as she does, it doesn't matter if I, you, or anyone else think her reasons are not worthy.

 

In your example, does it matter if the older woman became pregnant intentionally or not?  You frame one woman's need as being justified because she is some innocent victim while the other woman's need is unjustified because she is young and selfish.  What if it were the other way around?  What if the older woman had a healthy fetus but didn't want to ruin her lifestyle?  Does her age even matter at this point? And what if the 25 year old was the innocent victim by "unintentionally" becoming pregnant? And what really is the difference between a woman who doesn't want a kid because of the inconvenience and a woman who doesn't want a DS child? Downs kids are great and loving children.  Will it be too much of an inconvenience? And if it doesn't survive in the womb, why is the abortion even necessary, let alone justified?

 

Point is, with the law there needs to be logical standards.  Because once you start applying that law, if it isn't logically consistent, unfairness (and sometimes absurdity) will result when situations arise that fall outside of the perfect scenarios that were contrived to validate the law in the first place.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Rowley on November 4, 2011 at 5:43pm

That was @Reggie...for some reason it doesn't nest my replies correctly...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on November 4, 2011 at 9:17pm

Ning is silly that way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brett Arthur on November 4, 2011 at 8:29pm

Well technically, babies are just clusters of cells for a time. So are tumors... We have no problem removing tumors. Hell, life shouldn't be considered began until birth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on November 4, 2011 at 9:32pm

That's the beginning of worldly life. Your standard is ambiguous. Does life begin when the baby crowns, is halfway out, all the way out, or after the umbilical is cut? Until then, what is it? Dead? I only know living and dead. What is this intermediate state your position implies?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 12
• Next ›
• Page