|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:07 am
This is a question I've always had. A lot of people who are prochoice say that it shouldn't be legal during the third trimester, but this makes no sense to me.
If you value bodily integrity over the life of the fetus, then it shouldn't matter how many "people" a woman kills as long as that person is invading her body. If killing them gets rid of them, it should be acceptable.
Otherwise, it's defining a fetus as a person at a certain stage and pushing an opinion of personhood on a woman who might not agree that at viability, a fetus should be considered a person with a right to live.
Why is it that people say they're for abortion, but only up until a certain point? Is it because they defend the woman's bodily integrity, or because they don't believe personhood starts until a certain point (even though personhood is subjective) and they're willing to push THEIR idea of personhood on not only unborn humans but on women as well?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:30 am
First and fore most, Personhood is a construct. Its a descriminitory one that is only ever brought up when we decide who and what has more right (if any) over the other. COnsidering its somethign that can neither be prooven nor disprooven to exist, that it is nothing more then a idealistic concept, and the fact that its use is discrimination at it's core, I see it as pointless and distasteful to try and argue it in any manner. We grant more living rights to an unborn dog then we do an unborn human.
Rights should be granted upon life. Life inarguably begins on the moment of conception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:16 am
At one, admittedly indefinite, stage in pregnancy, the embryo-then-fetus has no nerves, no brain, and not even a spinal cord, thus it cannot feel pain. I see abortion at this point as less abhorrent than, say, at the third trimester, when the brain is developed enough to suffer pain.
Less abhorrent in the way that I would prefer execution by morphine overdose to execution by hanging. Less cruel, but someone still dies. If someone HAS to be executed (as in, I can't stop it), I'd prefer it be done in a painless manner. Same with abortion. If it's only legal in the first trimester, that's still better than it being legal at all stages, but I'm not going to fight to keep it legal at all, because it's still the intentional killing of a human, and I believe that's always wrong.
(I realise this was directed at the pro-choicers in here, but I thought I'd give my $.02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:34 pm
La Veuve Zin At one, admittedly indefinite, stage in pregnancy, the embryo-then-fetus has no nerves, no brain, and not even a spinal cord, thus it cannot feel pain. I see abortion at this point as less abhorrent than, say, at the third trimester, when the brain is developed enough to suffer pain. Less abhorrent in the way that I would prefer execution by morphine overdose to execution by hanging. Less cruel, but someone still dies. If someone HAS to be executed (as in, I can't stop it), I'd prefer it be done in a painless manner. Same with abortion. If it's only legal in the first trimester, that's still better than it being legal at all stages, but I'm not going to fight to keep it legal at all, because it's still the intentional killing of a human, and I believe that's always wrong. (I realise this was directed at the pro-choicers in here, but I thought I'd give my $.02) Even though I don't agree with it, having them abort it in the first trimester is better the second or third. Though I find it better if they ended it when it's a zygote and actully still in just a cell stage or before it's a fetus at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:13 pm
For me, it is about viability. Until the third trimester, the unborn human has no or almost no chance (5 months is like a 40 or 50% chance I think) of survival outside of the womb. So there is no way to remove the unborn human, who is violating the woman's bodily integrity, without killing the unborn human. At 6 months, she could have a C-Section done, or have labor induced instead of an abortion, and the newly-born human could be saved with medical technology.
At some point in the future, I strongly believe that unborn humans will be able to be removed from the womb during the second or even first trimester and kept alive through technology. At that point, I will be against anyone aborting (since there will be an actual other option) except for severe health reasons. I also believe that there will be a 100% effective, fool-proof form of contraceptive at or before that point in the future.
Please excuse my spelling, since I'm on a school computer and don't have FireFox 2.0 with its handy spell checker (my savior *wink*).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:16 pm
Tiger of the Fire We grant more living rights to an unborn dog then we do an unborn human. That is completely untrue. Unborn dogs have NO rights, and can be killed by spaying the mother. While most people don't get their dog's unborn puppies killed, they could. Many states do regulate how abortions can be performed on humans. No states have any laws about how unborn canines are treated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:19 pm
how about unborn eagles? many plants have more rights, too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:08 pm
divineseraph how about unborn eagles? many plants have more rights, too True, you can be fined for killing some plants and definitely eagle eggs. I think there are some endangered birds that are protected against even disturbing a nest. Maybe if there were fewer humans we'd realise how precious they are... neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:15 am
I'd say all the time, whatever the reason, although of course I'd prefer earlier rather than later. The sad thing is that a few women don't even realise until the third trimester, and being pro-choice, I don't feel that they should be limited because they didn't show symptoms. I also saw a documentary in which a woman had a third trimester abortion because her boyfriend was abusive and changed his mind about the pregnancy. Admittedly that's not always the reason, but it can happen.
Swans have more rights over here. I think killing them is treason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:28 pm
I believe, that if it's in a women's body, and has the ability to cause her harm at any stage in the pregnancy, that abortion should always be allowed.
I don't think that there should be a limit on at which time it is in pregnancy, only if having the abortion will cause the woman more harm then just delivering it - only then (please do not throw in the "abortion cause women more damage affects her fertility/gives her cancer then having the kid" opinion in - because I do not believe it). I say this, because many women who want an abortion, don't wait around till the third trimester to do so, sure some might not even know they were pregnant, but those cases are not the norm, most abortions done that late into the pregnancy are do to health reasons.
One of the main reasons women want pregnancy is to be rid of it - not be pregnant for quite a few months into it. divineseraph how about unborn eagles? many plants have more rights, too
They do not have cognitive ability of thought and do not understand the concept of 'rights'.
Humans on the otherhand are cognitive thinkers, and since there are many people in the world who are more then willing to abuse and take adavntage of other living humans, we have instituted something in the US called the 'Bill of rights'.
If you go into other countries outside of the US, 'Rights' is just a term, it's every woman, man, and child for themselves.
'Rights' is an illusionary term/thing, you are not born with 'rights', nor do you need them to survive.
Since humans are the most destructive mammal on the earth, those who do not want the earth to collapse in on itself and end our rntire exsistence as we know it, have found that protection of certain animals and plants species with laws to be necssary.
Plus, if you throw this argument in that 'animals and plants have more rights then unborn humans' then the 'abortion/overpopulation' argument becomes valid, due to the fact that killing off a few thousand unborn humans doesn't spell the end to some 500 species or the whole ecosystem in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:15 pm
Rinaqa I'd say all the time, whatever the reason, although of course I'd prefer earlier rather than later. The sad thing is that a few women don't even realise until the third trimester, and being pro-choice, I don't feel that they should be limited because they didn't show symptoms. I also saw a documentary in which a woman had a third trimester abortion because her boyfriend was abusive and changed his mind about the pregnancy. Admittedly that's not always the reason, but it can happen. Swans have more rights over here. I think killing them is treason. If their that far into the preganacy and nothing is wrong them they might as well have it since the fetus organs are working by then and it's close to being born. If they don't want it, that's what adoption it for. It's sad that birds and plants have more rights then them or at least more protection from people harming them. I think there should be a limit unless it's life and death, after first trimester it shouldn't be allowed unless it's an emgency. there should be a limit when ending lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:24 am
trite- alright, change my wording to "legal protection". there ya go.
and rinqua- at that point, the fetus could be removed and live. you honestly propose that it should be legal to kill this child (which i wil not call a fetus because, minus the umbelical cord and it's current locations, it could survive outside the womb with medical aid) for as little reason as whim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:45 pm
I shall go through in order some might not be considered abortion to some , i.e the first but as to others it is I shall list it nonetheless.
The morning after pill - I am completley in support of this. I believe that free access to this emergency contraceptive could help to reduce the number of abortions, which is always a good thing.
First trimester - If any actual abortion were to be totally acceptable it would be this one. Without such things as a brain/central nervous system there is some debate over whether or not the zygote has yet developed into a person or is simply that - a zygote (potential person as opposed to already there)
Second trimester - Saddens me. Makes me twitchy when I hear about women who used condoms and the pill and still became pregnant. Particularly as in a case i read about yesterday the pregnancy test performed by a GP consistently read negative until into the second trimester.
Third trimester - If its a question of elective abortion then no. By this point the fetus could survive outside the mother with little medical intervention thus it by philosophical standards becomes unjustifiable by the doctrine of double effect (a philosophical rule often used by medical staff when making difficult decisions regarding intention and responsibility)
In cases where the surgical removal of the fetus is necessary to save the lives of one or both then it becomes a lot more iffy. Better save one life than lose two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:27 am
divineseraph trite- alright, change my wording to "legal protection". there ya go. and rinqua- at that point, the fetus could be removed and live. you honestly propose that it should be legal to kill this child (which i wil not call a fetus because, minus the umbelical cord and it's current locations, it could survive outside the womb with medical aid) for as little reason as whim? Well, if a woman is that far in and didn't show symptoms until the last, and was really against having children, I think she should be spared the mental anguish - after all, even if she c-sectioned it and put it up for adoption, there is a high chance that it will want to - and be able to - track her down later. Which is something that one who is so very against children would not want. I wouldn't call that whim, I'd call it against personal belief, which I think is important. I don't like the idea, and I'm sure that the vast majority of women wouldn't abort in the third trimester if they didn't even realise that they were pregnant for reasons other than health, but that is honestly what I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:02 am
I agree with Rinaqa actually. If I was pro-choice that would be my stance. I'm not, my stance is pro-life, but I don't know if I could justify it to myself any other way if I was pro-choice.
I've been told many times that abortion in the third trimester is the easiest on a woman's body and carries the least amount of risk, so even if a fetus can survive on its own, it's still putting the mother at unnecessary risk.
If a person is invading a woman's bodily integrity, bottom line, if I was prochoice she should have the right to remove it, no matter how capable of living it was. A premie costs a lot of money, that's another concern, and then there's thrusting it into a harsh adoption system. (The adoption system can bite me. I hate it. It needs to change and it won't.)
To me, if the stance is bodily integrity, it shouldn't matter how many people a woman kills, or else if she only has the right to remove it, then abortions should be done in a way that removes a fetus or embryo whole and lets it die naturally, instead of sucking or cutting it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
