quote:

ORIGINAL: JanahX
And as far as youre tax dollars not paying for an abortion - well theyll be used anyways, to rear and raise the child through welfare and what other means, public housing, food stamps, medicaid, WIC, food programs at public schools, free limited cell phones, Im sure the list goes on and on -

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

So, what's it to be? Are children precious or are they actually just a drain? I just wondered, because I'm someone who'll likely never have kids. I'm too frigging selfish, is one major reason why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titaniya

would you feel blessed because "God" gave you the chance to give life?
- No. Partially because I'm agnostic, partially because I'm nearly phobic about pregnancy, and largely because I'm certain I'd have a chance to "give life" if I chose to without having to be raped for it.

would you cherish your baby?
- I doubt it, but it's hard to say. As of now, my only maternal instincts are directed at my cat, but who knows what power pregnancy hormones would have over me?

would you be set up to bring a child into the world?
would you have the money to bring a child into the world?
- I could probably emotionally handle it after some work, and I have enough people around me that I'd probably manage financial, but it would be incredibly difficult/stressful and might necessitate giving up on a lot of my long-term goals, which would lead to a major drop in self esteem on top of other emotional healing that would need to happen.

would you pay to have the child and give it up for adoption? would you go on welfare to have the child and give it up for adoption?
- If abortion wasn't an option (and I'd likely look into illegal avenues if need be), I would probably put it up for adoption, yes.

would you leave the country to have an abortion elsewhere?
- If necessary, absolutely.

would you try to hurt yourself or the baby so it dies?
- Possibly. It depends on how the aforementioned emotional healing/self esteem issues affect me.

would you kill yourself?
- No.

My stance on the entire thing is as follows: My right to feel comfortable in my body is more important than a non-sentient cell mass's right to take over my body in order to live. I don't think life starts at conception, and the embryo/fetus has no sense of self.

But hey, don't worry - if I get raped, my body will know I'm being raped and shut down to prevent pregnancy, despite what biologists would have you believe. ;)

Edited for grammar.

quote:

My stance on the entire thing is as follows: My right to feel comfortable in my body is more important than a non-sentient cell mass's right to take over my body in order to live. I don't think life starts at conception, and the embryo/fetus has no sense of self.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
As much as I believe in a woman's right to chose, at some point, the "fetuses" life takes precedent... that point is viability minus complications.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanahX

quote:

Okay, and here we have a divergence of agreement. If a person can not endure the consequences of an action, why is he or she participating in an action that can result in the consequence? If you know that fucking can result in pregnancy, why would you continue to fuck if you have no means by which to support or abort? Choices have consequences. A woman's choice to engage in a risky behavior does not put the responsibility for others to pay for the consequences of her behavior. I'm not saying she is the only one responsible for this. The guy has a responsibility to wrap his Whopper and to keep it in his pants if he is not capable of dealing with the consequences. This is just enabling the risky behavior. It's akin (not the same as, but similar) to bailing out the Wall Street risk takers instead of letting them face the consequences of their risky behaviors.
_____________________________

Thats not what this thread is about - this thread is about women that do not choose to participate. It is about women that are physically FORCED to participate in a physical act that can lead to conception.

quote:


And as far as youre tax dollars not paying for an abortion - well theyll be used anyways, to rear and raise the child through welfare and what other means, public housing, food stamps, medicaid, WIC, food programs at public schools, free limited cell phones, Im sure the list goes on and on -

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
In that case, grab a gun and start shooting. You are confusing issues here. Viability is around 22 weeks. There is no reason a woman shouldnt know before that time that she is pregnant. Provided mother's life is not an issue, she gives up the right to her choice after that time due to sheer laziness. Dont expect me to tell you its ok to kill a life simply because you were too lazy to deal with it within an appropriate time frame.
Dont twist this. Her choice is having an abortion at any time for any reason... something I do not agree with.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DNAHelicase
I don't believe a fetus should get full rights until it's left the womb. I think it should have some *limited* rights once it has reached a point it could be both viable and functional (as opposed to being kept alive but with miserable quality of life) outside of the womb, but hasn't been born yet.

Oh? What rights would it get and what rights would it not get?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DNAHelicase
You say that the debatable parts haven't been acceptably defined yet. I think viability has been well defined. The only debatable portions left are terms like "personhood" and "right to life" both of which are so philosophical and unscientific (untestable) I doubt they ever can be defined in a way that a majority of people will accept (at least, not for the ones who do not take religious scriptures literally). To me, it seems like people who are against all or most forms of abortion are using those terms as a smokescreen, precisely BECAUSE viability IS well defined and they don't like it.

Is "viability" defined and used? I don't know that it is. I think there is a general "consensus" on viability and a more firm "stage"definition for unacceptable abortion. To me, that isn't acceptably defined. If it was, there would be much less to debate. "Personhood" would be that time when a fetus is granted rights of a human being. And, what is nebulous about a "right to life?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

In that case, grab a gun and start shooting. You are confusing issues here. Viability is around 22 weeks. There is no reason a woman shouldnt know before that time that she is pregnant. Provided mother's life is not an issue, she gives up the right to her choice after that time due to sheer laziness. Dont expect me to tell you its ok to kill a life simply because you were too lazy to deal with it within an appropriate time frame.

Dont twist this. Her choice is having an abortion at any time for any reason... something I do not agree with.

quote:

I do believe there is a cut-off for when it is appropriate to undergo a purposeful abortion, unless there is an immediate harm to the mother, or if a test has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the fetus would ultimately suffer greatly (sever medical conditions) by becoming a baby. In either of these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot support making a woman or a child suffer due to someone belief that all fetuses must become children.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DNAHelicase

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DNAHelicase
I don't believe a fetus should get full rights until it's left the womb. I think it should have some *limited* rights once it has reached a point it could be both viable and functional (as opposed to being kept alive but with miserable quality of life) outside of the womb, but hasn't been born yet.

Oh? What rights would it get and what rights would it not get?

When a fetus has reached the point it could be viable outside of the womb, then it should have the right to continue developing and be born, but not at the expense of the mother's life. Upon birth, the infant should gain the basic rights extended to any human.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DNAHelicase
You say that the debatable parts haven't been acceptably defined yet. I think viability has been well defined. The only debatable portions left are terms like "personhood" and "right to life" both of which are so philosophical and unscientific (untestable) I doubt they ever can be defined in a way that a majority of people will accept (at least, not for the ones who do not take religious scriptures literally). To me, it seems like people who are against all or most forms of abortion are using those terms as a smokescreen, precisely BECAUSE viability IS well defined and they don't like it.

Is "viability" defined and used? I don't know that it is. I think there is a general "consensus" on viability and a more firm "stage"definition for unacceptable abortion. To me, that isn't acceptably defined. If it was, there would be much less to debate. "Personhood" would be that time when a fetus is granted rights of a human being. And, what is nebulous about a "right to life?"

Viability is defined. It's the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb, and that's generally recognized as 24 weeks. If you want to get specific, something called the "limit of viability" is the point of development at which 50% of fetuses would be able to survive outside the womb. If you want to be generous, you could say viability is at 22 weeks, but the survival rate drops significantly from 24 to 22 weeks. To my knowledge, there are no records of a fetus surviving outside the womb that was any younger than 21 week and 5 days. So hell, let's say 21 weeks is the cutoff for viability. It's still a recognizable, definable point. And THAT is my issue with "right to life" and "personhood." Neither one of those has a scientifically agreed upon, testable definition.

quote:


Personhood, for example...personhood seems to revolve around the concept of a soul, or whatever you want to call a being's essence--what it is that makes a Homo sapiens individual a "person." So how can personhood be defined in a testable, scientific way, which it ought to be if it's going to be applied to a scientific process (fetal development)? Is it when an individual begins to show signs of a personality? Because if so, that means a fetus has far less recognizable, measurable "personhood" than the typical adult border collie. And can people who are braindead lose their personhood by that definition, or do they get grandfathered in because they had it previously? Or maybe "personhood" starts when you begin to have rational thoughts. Does that mean that artificial intelligence programs could gain personhood rights in the future? Does a fetus gain personhood when it can feel pain? If so, why aren't other vertebrates given the same consideration for the pain they feel? Are there different degrees of personhood--can one human be more of a person than another; can a chimpanzee have more personhood than a comatose human? If personhood is defined as any living cell with Homo sapiens DNA, then should all the individual pieces of our bodies be given the same protections as a zygote? More to the point, would the individual sperm and eggs that create new persons be given special protections because of personhood definition? Or what of the naturally miscarried embryos that fail to implant? If you place the standard at "personhood starts with unique, individual DNA" how does that affect unique, deleterious mutations in the Homo sapiens DNA of an adult? If personhood begins at conception, are the embryos created at fertility clinics imbued with personhood, and if so, is there an ethical obligation to implant them once created? And for that matter, if you define personhood as conception, what the hell are people doing creating persons in test tubes, especially in cases where the test tube zygote is specifically picked out (i.e., picking out particular eggs and sperm with or without certain genes that the parents want)? That seems ethically bizarre, to say the least, by that definition of personhood, and seems to be at odds with people who hold religious beliefs about conception and a god's part in such matters. These are just some of the thoughts that make me uncomfortable with the idea of "personhood" and trying to use it as a measure of whether an abortion is "acceptable."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

So, just the right to not have it's life extinguished other than in cases where the mother's life could be lost. Well, I'm not sure I totally agree with a developing fetus getting only that right, but I can accept the terms, other than if the parents agree that the mother's life would be sacrificed for the child. IF the mother doesn't accept that, her wish rules. In cases where there is no agreement, the mother's choice would be the one acted on.

quote:

Know what those two words have in common? Subjectivity. That's not exactly something we have defined, then. And, that was my point. Is medical science going to get to the point where 50%+ survive birth at 12 weeks? Is there going to be a hue and cry regarding the advances of medical science waging "war on women?"

quote:

And, here is where "personhood" can be defined and solve your problem. "Personhood" could be defined as that point in time when a fetus is afforded basic human rights. If we define the limit on abortion as the "limit of viability," defined as that point in fetal development where 50% would survive outside the womb. I have always seen "personhood" as that time when a being gains the basic human rights.

quote:

According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[2] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive