I'm pro choice but this is an abortion too far.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'm not going to set a limit. While it's extremely unlikely, there are situations where a life-threatening situation is discovered only at the last minute. Save the baby or save the mother, I'll take mother every time.

But you did set a limit at birth. What if the mother can't be saved but the child might? Do you still take the chance or loose both of them.

[Sprayber]

Some of you seem to think all abortions are done because of medical reason. I myself won't say that an abortion is wrong if it means that the woman will die as a result. I have known women that took that chance but I wouldnt want it forced upon them.

Anyway, I'm out of this debate. I just see it a different way.

[chequita guevara]

If a woman wants an abortion because she doesn't like the color of the fetus' hair, it should be legal.

[Sava]

I'm not asking about the goverment. I am asking why YOU and CHE have set his arbirtrary line. What is the difference between a child inside the womb right before birth and the child right after birth. From what che said, we might be able to streatch it out a few more months after the actual birth. Is it a matter of convience that birth is the arbirtrary cut off line. That way the mother doesnt have to actually see it.

What is about birth that turns a featus into a child. I'm curious.

Simple... I don't consider a fetus to be a "child" until its born. Until it's free from the mother's body, it's part of it.

The only time the government should be involved in a case of a fetus dying is when the mother who plans to keep the child and if the fetus dies as a result of someone else attacking the mother.

Does that mean I want to see 9 month old kids being put to death? No. But realistically, a woman is not going to go through a pregnancy and just decide she doesn't want the child. It just doesn't happen. And like I said, if it does, we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

If you are Pro-Life and don't want women having abortions, then preach safe-sex and contraception. Both pro-life and pro-choice camps would like to have less abortions, it's just a question of how to achieve that goal.

I don't believe a government has the right to legislate what someone can do with their body. And until someone is born, I don't think they are an independent human being capable of being protected by the law. Sure, putting a limit like that might seem arbitrary, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Sure, the fairest decision might not be the most popular... and it might not be in conjuction with a lot of people's moral beliefs. But you cannot hope to achieve a moral goal by forcing your will on others.

I'll just echo my suggestion to anyone pro-life. If you want to decrease the number of abortions... promote safe-sex and use of contraceptives. Celebacy isn't for everyone. Sure, you might think that celebacy is moral and that it's wrong to have sex unless you are married or want a kid, but that's not realistic. And if you ever hope to accomplish your goals, your solution needs to be realistic. Banning abortion won't stop abortions. It will only drive women to the coathanger and alley method... or more affluent women will simply travel to a place where they can get an abortion. And how is such a law going to be enforced? Are you going to create an Abortion Police who checks to see if women are pregnant and then arrest them if they cease to be pregnant without the child being born?

It's just like the War on Drugs. Banning the substance doesn't stop use. So what's next? A "War on Abortion"? It won't work.

We live in a society obsessed with the rule of law... a society that wants to ban everything it doesn't like or agree with and then use the force of law enforcement to enforce and impose it's will on people. Sometimes, the best solution is a very unorthodox approach.

But people get so worked up and dead-set in some ideology that they are blind to the problem and are too lazy to listen to other solutions.

[Caligastia]

I'm totally with Sava and Che on this one. Damn I'm left wing.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I'm totally with Sava and Che on this one. Damn I'm left wing.

nah, it's not about left wing or right wing... sure, generally left wing=pro-choice, etc... but polarizing this discussion into left vs right just destroys any hope of reaching a solution.

Both sides are guilty of mis-characterizing the other. And I am guilty of it as well... but if people would stop fighting like children over this issue and look at the situation realistically, we could create a system and strategies to decrease the number of abortions.

[DinoDoc]

Sigh.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Sava
nah, it's not about left wing or right wing... sure, generally left wing=pro-choice, etc... but polarizing this discussion into left vs right just destroys any hope of reaching a solution.

True. I was just trolling really.

Both sides are guilty of mis-characterizing the other. And I am guilty of it as well... but if people would stop fighting like children over this issue and look at the situation realistically, we could create a system and strategies to decrease the number of abortions.

I think emotion gets in the way in a lot of these kinds of discussions. On any topic I try to look for a solution that's not based on emotion.

[Drogue]

I think this whole case is strange. The women who is trying to prosecute the mother does not have access to the information on the case. The hospital has released that the baby would have a cleft palete, but when asked if that was the only condition would not comment, nor would they comment on the situation of the mother. There are many problems with this case. The women bringing it to court has no involvement with the abortion and has no right to see the private details of the would-be mother, which would come out if the case goes to court; the police force have investigated somewhat and decided, with advice, that it isn't able to prosecute; and the decision of a severe abnormality should be, as it is, IIRC, up to the doctor. I think the last paragraph sums up how I feel about it:

I think it is absolutely bizarre that the Reverend feels - knowing absolutely nothing about individual circumstances of this woman, that she can go on to take legal action around it.

As for my views on abortion, we feel we have a right to kill any other organism that is feeding itself of our own bodies. I don't see it as a foetus' right to live, but as a womens right to withdraw her support. If she decides she doesn't want her body sustaining another, then that other must be removed. If it can survive outside her body, then let it and let the baby be adopted, if it can't, then it will be an abortion.

[Spiffor]

I don't know when foetuses/infants are able to have organized thoughts, but I remember having read that a foetus can feel pain after 24 weeks.

Since today's abortions look like being really painful for the foetus (no precaution is taken to limit the pain), I think late abortions should only happen when the life of the mother is threatened, or when a grave problem gets detected.

In this precise case, I have no idea whether the case was grave or not, so I can't have an opinion.

I'm strongly pro-choice, but I think it is "utterly ghoulish" (thx Stefu) to kill 9 months-old foetuses. Indeed, it makes no difference with killing born infants.
The American debate on the issue could be much more healthy, if it wasn't polarized in either-or.

[Ned]

Che avoids the issue, so does Sava. This indicates that they have no good faith ethical, as oppposed to legal, position on abortion.

In contrast, I see morality in terminating the life of the unborn or even born infants with serious defects as defined in the British law. Both should be legal. This, after all, was a basic Roman law, one of the original ten inscribed in the Forum.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Absolutely!

Think of how many more messed-up people we would have if it wasn't for abortion.

Sure, for instance, over the past fifty years nearly 300 million Soviets have been aborted. Without abortion they might have won the cold war.

In most parts of the world the ratio of females to males at birth is 1.05 to 1. In India however, the ratio is 0.90 to 1 thanks to ultrasound guided selective abortion.

[cinch]

I think a good way to look the situation is like this:

There are unjustified abortions. This is a Bad Thing. However, legislating abortions, and getting big government involved in the intimate lives of citizens is not the right course of action. The vast majority of abortions are early and justifiable. Every time a certain story comes out that may or may not be true, about an unjustified abortion, people like to jump on it and start proclaiming that nearly-born babies are being slaughtered every 10 seconds worldwide.

Mistakes are made; unjustified abortions are performed. But you can't introduce blanket rules for an entire range of medical procedures, simply because there is an exception to the rule that occurs from time to time, and is unfavourable.

When it comes to medical procedures, I like to place my trust in the doctors and patients, not so much the bureaucracy.

But that's just me.

[monolith94]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
"Cleft palate" is catch-all term for a whole range of deformity- varying from the barely noticeable to serious facial deformity.

From the article-



In some cases the kid is born looking like someone has taken an axe to its face. Still- Apolyton knows best.

Laz speaks the truth - a simple google search reveals it.


Warning, only for people with really strong stomachs and a desire to know what a really bad cleft palate looks like:

http://www.llu.edu/llu/medicine/plastics/images/missions/phillippines97-1.jpg

[Drake Tungsten]

God, some of you people are ****ing ghouls. It's a pity your mothers decided to keep their "hangnail".