In case we haven't beaten the abortion horse to death yet

[Kaydene]

And I can't see it as life in the human sense, so don't count it as a lost one.
--A

Same here, but as DW pointed out, that's not how pro-lifers view it, even the non-religious view it as morally wrong because you're cutting of a "potential." It seems like the only real compromise that can be reached is in cases of rape, threatening the life of the mother, and (IMO) incense.

Yeah, makes it hard when you can't define your terms first. The whole argument is at an impasse before it even begins.

[sindatur]

And I can't see it as life in the human sense, so don't count it as a lost one.
--A

Same here, but as DW pointed out, that's not how pro-lifers view it, even the non-religious view it as morally wrong because you're cutting of a "potential." It seems like the only real compromise that can be reached is in cases of rape, threatening the life of the mother, and (IMO) incense.

Yeah, makes it hard when you can't define your terms first. The whole argument is at an impasse before it even begins.

Hmmm...Since a baby born premature, after the 6 month mark is more likely to survive then not (and more likely to survive as every day goes by), I believe it should be pretty easy to come to a compromise to disallow late term abortions, except in the case of danger to the mother. After all, you had several chances before the time that the fetus becomes unquestionably "life"

First chance to prevent pregnancy - use Birth Control
Second Chance to prevent pregnancy - Use morning after pill
Third chance to prevent birth - 1st Trimester abortion

After all those chances to prevent a baby from being born, isn't it a bit on the excessive side to still allow an elective abortion after 6 months gestation?

[Avatar]

It seems like the only real compromise that can be reached is in cases of rape, threatening the life of the mother, and (IMO) incense.

Which violates the principle of the people who are in favour of letting everybody choose for themselves.

First chance to prevent pregnancy - use Birth Control
Second Chance to prevent pregnancy - Use morning after pill
Third chance to prevent birth - 1st Trimester abortion

I'm totally fine with that. If you haven't made up your mind by 3 months, too bad. Except of course where it's necessary to protect the mother.

And on that note, most people would accept the necessity of such a procedure in those cases. Thus we do grant the mother's right to life a higher priority.

--A

[Orlion]

It seems like the only real compromise that can be reached is in cases of rape, threatening the life of the mother, and (IMO) incense.

Which violates the principle of the people who are in favour of letting everybody choose for themselves.

--A

Yeah, I should have said "agreement"

Hmmm...Since a baby born premature, after the 6 month mark is more likely to survive then not (and more likely to survive as every day goes by), I believe it should be pretty easy to come to a compromise to disallow late term abortions, except in the case of danger to the mother. After all, you had several chances before the time that the fetus becomes unquestionably "life"

First chance to prevent pregnancy - use Birth Control
Second Chance to prevent pregnancy - Use morning after pill
Third chance to prevent birth - 1st Trimester abortion

After all those chances to prevent a baby from being born, isn't it a bit on the excessive side to still allow an elective abortion after 6 months gestation?

Though I object to the principle of the argument (I believe a child is only alive after it is born), I think it's a very sensible compromise.... especially if emphasis were placed on the availability and proper use of birth control and morning after pills. With the use of these, abortions themselves would only be needed in extreme cases.

Of course, a lot of pro-lifers I know object to the morning-after pill. It's still abortion to them Though if you're reading this, Cail, I'm curious as to your opinion on morning after pills. (I'd also welcome the opinion of other pro-lifers on the subject... I suppose )

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I know that staunch pro-lifers object to any pill or procedure that interrupts the process once sperm and egg have become one.

The morning-after pill is intended to prevent the zygote from properly implanting, thus it is abortive instead of preventative.

BC, physical barriers, and even the old reliable pullout method are contraceptives in the true sense, in that they intend to prevent conception at all, rather than disrupting or destroy the zygote/embryo after conception has occurred.

dw

[sindatur]

It seems like the only real compromise that can be reached is in cases of rape, threatening the life of the mother, and (IMO) incense.

Which violates the principle of the people who are in favour of letting everybody choose for themselves.

--A

Yeah, I should have said "agreement"

Hmmm...Since a baby born premature, after the 6 month mark is more likely to survive then not (and more likely to survive as every day goes by), I believe it should be pretty easy to come to a compromise to disallow late term abortions, except in the case of danger to the mother. After all, you had several chances before the time that the fetus becomes unquestionably "life"

First chance to prevent pregnancy - use Birth Control
Second Chance to prevent pregnancy - Use morning after pill
Third chance to prevent birth - 1st Trimester abortion

After all those chances to prevent a baby from being born, isn't it a bit on the excessive side to still allow an elective abortion after 6 months gestation?

Though I object to the principle of the argument (I believe a child is only alive after it is born), I think it's a very sensible compromise.... especially if emphasis were placed on the availability and proper use of birth control and morning after pills. With the use of these, abortions themselves would only be needed in extreme cases.

Of course, a lot of pro-lifers I know object to the morning-after pill. It's still abortion to them Though if you're reading this, Cail, I'm curious as to your opinion on morning after pills. (I'd also welcome the opinion of other pro-lifers on the subject... I suppose )

Seriously, you draw a distinction betweeen wether a baby has popped out or not, despite viability? So, there is a difference, to you, between a baby the day after it's born, and the day before it's born? I can't see a difference, and wonder what makes that distinction for you?

[Orlion]

Seriously, you draw a distinction betweeen wether a baby has popped out or not, despite viability? So, there is a difference, to you, between a baby the day after it's born, and the day before it's born? I can't see a difference, and wonder what makes that distinction for you?

To me, viability does not equate actuality. When the organism is still within the womb (as it were) it is not, in any way, capable of rational actions. A born child is. An example to help illustrate: A born child that is hungry will make the rational decision to cry in order to obtain sustenance. An unborn child does not have this same capacity, as it is hooked to a biological mean of sustainability.

That's how I view it at the moment. Are there holes? There are. I'd still have to explain away the following:

1)The pre-birth "kicking" phenomena
2) People in a coma.

Sleeping is different from a coma and is part of at least some rational being's existence (As HAL's creator said, "All intelligent things dream."
)

Ultimately, it comes down to being only able to observe "rational" behavior at the moment of birth. Presence of "rational" behaviour (maybe cognitive is a better word?) is what I consider to be the ultimate indicator of significant life. That's why the two problems that I've mentioned are problems, I'm not quite sure what to make of them. The first could be just dumb reflexes (or not), and in the second case, by my definition, the person would be void of any significant life.

[Vraith]

As I think I said elsewhere: if you believe human at conception, there is no way to argue...but you have no right to enforce that belief on others.

I am sure many people are very very lucky and happy that modern medicine has seriously extended the viability period...but [and I'm not sure if this will be a blessing or curse] I'd bet an aweful lot of money that within 30-50 years, technological 'viability' will reach the moment of conception. What then?

Any standard is going to be arbitrary...for myself, I'd say examine brain function [I'd guess lizard brain starts pretty early, people brain fairly late] and survival odds w/out tech intervention, and let the parents decide. [I still have no answer for dealing with a father's rights].

[Orlion]

Vraith, is that a Roger Waters quote in your signature?

[sindatur]

Seriously, you draw a distinction betweeen wether a baby has popped out or not, despite viability? So, there is a difference, to you, between a baby the day after it's born, and the day before it's born? I can't see a difference, and wonder what makes that distinction for you?

To me, viability does not equate actuality. When the organism is still within the womb (as it were) it is not, in any way, capable of rational actions. A born child is. An example to help illustrate: A born child that is hungry will make the rational decision to cry in order to obtain sustenance. An unborn child does not have this same capacity, as it is hooked to a biological mean of sustainability.

That's how I view it at the moment. Are there holes? There are. I'd still have to explain away the following:

1)The pre-birth "kicking" phenomena
2) People in a coma.

Sleeping is different from a coma and is part of at least some rational being's existence (As HAL's creator said, "All intelligent things dream."
)

Ultimately, it comes down to being only able to observe "rational" behavior at the moment of birth. Presence of "rational" behaviour (maybe cognitive is a better word?) is what I consider to be the ultimate indicator of significant life. That's why the two problems that I've mentioned are problems, I'm not quite sure what to make of them. The first could be just dumb reflexes (or not), and in the second case, by my definition, the person would be void of any significant life.

So, you actually believe it's OK to abort a fetus that is old enough to survive birth, but, simply hasn't popped out yet? I can't see my way clear to outlaw abortion, but, I can't see how this is in anyway right, ethical, acceptable, etc. The only difference is that the baby hasn't come out yet, it's still every bit the baby it would be if it popped out, IMHO.

[Orlion]

Seriously, you draw a distinction betweeen wether a baby has popped out or not, despite viability? So, there is a difference, to you, between a baby the day after it's born, and the day before it's born? I can't see a difference, and wonder what makes that distinction for you?

To me, viability does not equate actuality. When the organism is still within the womb (as it were) it is not, in any way, capable of rational actions. A born child is. An example to help illustrate: A born child that is hungry will make the rational decision to cry in order to obtain sustenance. An unborn child does not have this same capacity, as it is hooked to a biological mean of sustainability.

That's how I view it at the moment. Are there holes? There are. I'd still have to explain away the following:

1)The pre-birth "kicking" phenomena
2) People in a coma.

Sleeping is different from a coma and is part of at least some rational being's existence (As HAL's creator said, "All intelligent things dream."
)

Ultimately, it comes down to being only able to observe "rational" behavior at the moment of birth. Presence of "rational" behaviour (maybe cognitive is a better word?) is what I consider to be the ultimate indicator of significant life. That's why the two problems that I've mentioned are problems, I'm not quite sure what to make of them. The first could be just dumb reflexes (or not), and in the second case, by my definition, the person would be void of any significant life.

So, you actually believe it's OK to abort a fetus that is old enough to survive birth, but, simply hasn't popped out yet? I can't see my way clear to outlaw abortion, but, I can't see how this is in anyway right, ethical, acceptable, etc. The only difference is that the baby hasn't come out yet, it's still every bit the baby it would be if it popped out, IMHO.

Except that it isn't. The fact that it may survive is not enough to convince me it is like a newborn because at the same time it may not survive. In cases like these, I like to define things as they are, not as they might be or even could be. As Vraith mentioned, technology could easily change the perception of how we view "survivability". So for this reason also, since viability can change, I do not think it's an accurate measure of whether or not something has significant life.

[Vraith]

Vraith, is that a Roger Waters quote in your signature?

You got it, baby.

[sindatur]

To me, viability does not equate actuality. When the organism is still within the womb (as it were) it is not, in any way, capable of rational actions. A born child is. An example to help illustrate: A born child that is hungry will make the rational decision to cry in order to obtain sustenance. An unborn child does not have this same capacity, as it is hooked to a biological mean of sustainability.

That's how I view it at the moment. Are there holes? There are. I'd still have to explain away the following:

1)The pre-birth "kicking" phenomena
2) People in a coma.

Sleeping is different from a coma and is part of at least some rational being's existence (As HAL's creator said, "All intelligent things dream."
)

Ultimately, it comes down to being only able to observe "rational" behavior at the moment of birth. Presence of "rational" behaviour (maybe cognitive is a better word?) is what I consider to be the ultimate indicator of significant life. That's why the two problems that I've mentioned are problems, I'm not quite sure what to make of them. The first could be just dumb reflexes (or not), and in the second case, by my definition, the person would be void of any significant life.

So, you actually believe it's OK to abort a fetus that is old enough to survive birth, but, simply hasn't popped out yet? I can't see my way clear to outlaw abortion, but, I can't see how this is in anyway right, ethical, acceptable, etc. The only difference is that the baby hasn't come out yet, it's still every bit the baby it would be if it popped out, IMHO.

Except that it isn't. The fact that it may survive is not enough to convince me it is like a newborn because at the same time it may not survive. In cases like these, I like to define things as they are, not as they might be or even could be. As Vraith mentioned, technology could easily change the perception of how we view "survivability". So for this reason also, since viability can change, I do not think it's an accurate measure of whether or not something has significant life.

So, baby is next week (mother is 39 weeks into gestation), and the mother is tired of waiting to be rid of her pregnancy, you would have no problem with her aborting the fetus?

My reason for disallowing abortions of viable fetuses, is that you could give birth at that point, and the child could be adopted if you don't desire to have it. (remember, there aren't enough infants available for adoption to meet demand, so no already born child is being knocked out of their place in the adoption line, the reason there are older children that never get adopted is because many want only an infant)

Another case, baby is prematurely born with no problems at 35 weeks, and the same day a mother wants to abort her 38 week pregnancy, you're OK with that?

[Fist and Faith]

This question must have been asked somewhere in one of these threads, but I don't remember. What do folks who think a baby is not alive until birth think of a pregnant woman getting punched in the stomach several times by the father-to-be who doesn't want to be a father? If she miscarries, is there a crime aside from punching a woman in the stomach?

[Fist and Faith]

Vraith, is that a Roger Waters quote in your signature?

You got it, baby.

And a Peter Gabriel?

[Vraith]

Vraith, is that a Roger Waters quote in your signature?

You got it, baby.

And a Peter Gabriel?

Yep.
Anyone gonna go for the trifecta and get the third one?

[Fist and Faith]

Never would have known it without googling. But I'm a huge Peter Gabriel freak.

[Vraith]

Never would have known it without googling. But I'm a huge Peter Gabriel freak.

At the risk of staying off topic: I like all his stuff [even when he was in genesis], but that one is on my fav disc, and about one of my fav poets.

[sindatur]

This question must have been asked somewhere in one of these threads, but I don't remember. What do folks who think a baby is not alive until birth think of a pregnant woman getting punched in the stomach several times by the father-to-be who doesn't want to be a father? If she miscarries, is there a crime aside from punching a woman in the stomach?

If they agree with me that it takes a child away from it's parents wihtout their consent (even if they didn't want it, because it removes the choice) they have my support for murder of an unborn child, or loss of an emotional attachment the parents had, or whatever they classify the loss of the baby as... because I believe it's a true loss and I'll settle for whatever I can get to honor the life lost... IMHO, of course

[Orlion]

So, baby is next week (mother is 39 weeks into gestation), and the mother is tired of waiting to be rid of her pregnancy, you would have no problem with her aborting the fetus?

My reason for disallowing abortions of viable fetuses, is that you could give birth at that point, and the child could be adopted if you don't desire to have it. (remember, there aren't enough infants available for adoption to meet demand, so no already born child is being knocked out of their place in the adoption line, the reason there are older children that never get adopted is because many want only an infant)

Another case, baby is prematurely born with no problems at 35 weeks, and the same day a mother wants to abort her 38 week pregnancy, you're OK with that?

I do not view it as murder. Would the mother be a bitch that can't make up her mind? Probably, but she is no murderer. Such a person would be (to me) the moral equivalent of someone who drinks irresponsibly (but not drive), chain smoke severely, or decide they want to try heroin. I don't encourage it, but I don't find anything objectively morally wrong about them.
I don't know if that answers whether or not I'd be OK with that. So, more directly, sure, let it be legal... but that doesn't prevent me from judging you as a result.

As far as giving up a baby up for adoption, look at it this way: For each baby that enters the adoption market, the longer older orphans have to wait to be adopted. Just a little turn-about that doesn't have much to do with anything

This question must have been asked somewhere in one of these threads, but I don't remember. What do folks who think a baby is not alive until birth think of a pregnant woman getting punched in the stomach several times by the father-to-be who doesn't want to be a father? If she miscarries, is there a crime aside from punching a woman in the stomach?

I think I answered this question a couple of years ago... but I'm always willing to part with my opinions When a pregnancy is wanted by one of the parties, the unborn becomes an anticipation of the child. In other words, I think ultimately parents love a fetus not because it's a fetus but because it can become a wanted child. When someone punches a mother-to-be, they are not only assaulting the woman, they are destroying one's hope and dream for a child. So, in my opinion, there are at least two charges: one that has to do with interfering with the will of the parents to have a child and the other being an assault (possibly attempted murder) on the mother-to-be.

So, ultimately I think it counts as two crimes...but I think you ultimately want to know whether or not the forced miscarriage of the unborn should count as murder or not. Obviously, if I don't think the unborn is alive, then it isn't murder. But that doesn't mean it still isn't a serious crime. Someone is trying to exert their will forcibly upon the other, which I find extremely immoral in of itself. Furthermore, the nature of the offense kinda likens it (slightly) to rape in my opinion, which I think isn't punished severely enough at present. So what I'm getting at is that what I would consider fit punishment for forcing a miscarriage violently would be just about indistinguishable from a punishment for murder (maybe short of a death sentence).