Welcome to Gaia! ::

Umm I don't understand what you are talking about with the artificial embryo thing. Women are still going to want to have sex and women are still going to get pregnant, artificial embryos or not.

You know, I haven't really sat down and thought about why I make an exception for viability until now. sweatdrop You make some very interesting points that I haven't taken into consideration so I think I will ponder on them for a while and get back to you on that...

Yeah...it's something like that. It's hard for me to explain. I guess it just kinda squicks me out. I mean in order to have a third trimester abortion you'd have to like crush the skull or something right? Or hollow it out so that it can be pulled out. I've seen those life propaganda pics of third trimester fetii and whether they were fake or still borns or not it really just freaked me out the first time I ever saw them and those images are kinda burned into my mind now. It just really disturbed me...So I don't know. I doubt I would ever try to illegalize 3rd trimester abortions if they were ever allowed, but I just can't stand the thought that they'd be ripping apart something that by then looks that human and is as much developed as it is.

I feel like, "Hey you've already gone this far in the pregnancy, why end it now?" and as much as I can't stand the adoption system I'd rather they just wait a month or two and birth the kid and put it up for adoption if they don't want it...but I dunno. I can't control people and I don't like to force people to do things they don't want to...so yeah.

So why is this any different than the other terms? What's so special about the third trimester? It's at an age where some people think that it's okay to place personhood. The thing is, other people think it's just as disgusting earlier on. It grosses them out. It sickens them. Should this be the basis for determining rights, that it makes people feel uneasy, or that some people feel like it's murder? If it's about a woman's bodily integrity, then it shouldn't matter that some people feel it's murder, or else it's selecting which people's opinions matter enough to override the woman's bodily integrity, and which people's opinions don't matter enough to do the same thing. This is why I always say personhood doesn't really matter in the debate. It's different for everyone. Everyone has different points where they believe a human becomes a human being. For some people, it's a matter of just plain existing. For others, it's a matter of when the heartbeat starts, or when the primitive brainwaves occur. Then there are people who say it starts at viability. What I'm asking is, why is it okay to say one group's definition of personhood is enough to override a woman's bodily integrity? If it's about a woman's bodily integrity, it shouldn't matter how many people she kills, because they're invading her body and she should choose what to do with her own body, right? If it's about personhood, the bodily integrity argument has no meaning because personhood overrides it. If it IS about personhood, then why is your definition of personhood better than mine is? Why does your opinion matter enough to legally override a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, but mine doesn't?

Because, at viability the unborn human can be removed from the womb without it dying. As someone who believes that the life of the unborn human is important, I would think that you understand wanting to end the violation of the woman's bodily integrity without resulting in the unborn human's death...

Do you mean "artificial wombs"?

And, assuming that the wombs work and the surgery to remove the unborn human is safe for both unborn and woman, yes.

Because the risk is worth allowing both humans to live while still allowing the woman to assert her bodily integrity. And aren't third trimester abortions riskier than other abortions?

So?

It sucks that such things happen. However, that doesn't mean that she can just order something killed when it can be removed without killing it. She gets to deny use of her body to the unborn human, and at viability she can deny it that use but not kill it.

Right -- she gets the choice to have the unborn human removed from her body. Bodily integrity doesn't give her the right to kill the unborn human if there is a way to save it, in my opinion.

And really, it isn't as though there are many places that a woman can get a third trimester unborn human aborted for non-severe health reasons. Which is all that matters.

I thought that someone in here said that Canada also won't give out late term abortions for non-serious-health reasons, even though they are legal there...?

Ora ora, BD is about the fact that neither the state nor any other individual has a right to possess another's body.

Even prisoner's and orphans aren't "property" of the state.

And bodily domain only applies to two of those, one of whom still does not possess the right to violate the bodily domain of the other. 3nodding

Getting back to the hippocratic oath, I think it was necessary to change it, if only to get rid of some timely inconsistencies with the trends of "now", just like I would expect everything to be changed and updated to fit into the times.

Peer: As for bodily domain, all People have it, and whether you think the fetus is a person or not is unprovable, because it's our seperate opinions on the issue, of course.

I think doctors have a difficult profession. Maybe sometimes what they have to do medically goes against what they believe, and that's unfortunate. But doctors have to do messy work-- I just think that if there were more just... specialists in abortion (though I'd prefer no need for abortion of course), it would make it easier for doctors to not have to do work that they find morally objectionable, or... not in the span of the field they were hoping to specialise in, if that makes sense.