Having kids, father gets no say ?

[Duster929]

Solo viability.

You could argue that we don't have solo viability until many months after we're born. Maybe even years. And there are plenty of elderly people who don't have "solo viability".

I'm not a pro-lifer. I'm definitely pro-choice. But both sides of this debate always try to simplify the issue and mark a line in the sand. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to mark that line. Terminating a pregnancy isn't an easy decision. Any attempt to make it easy by saying "it's a clump of cells" is really just trying to avoid the obvious ethical and moral dilemma that abortion represents.

I think that in order to have a meaningful debate, the complexity of the issue has to be acknowledged. Both sides can make valid arguments; neither is completely rock-solid and obviously correct, as far as I'm concerned. I think that as a society we have to acknowledge that abortion is a distasteful thing wrought with emotional and moral implications. That doesn't mean it's wrong. In our society we do lots of distasteful and ethically questionable things, because doing those things allows for the pursuit of a greater good.

--- D

 

[Duster929]

We have conciousness

So you're sure that humans become conscious the second they exit from the womb? Not an hour before, or a week before, or a couple of months before? Do the doctors run a "consciousness test" on fetuses at some point during the pregnancy?

The "consciousness" measure isn't a really good one. Mostly because it can't really be measured.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You could argue that we don't have solo viability until many months after we're born. Maybe even years. And there are plenty of elderly people who don't have "solo viability".

I'm not a pro-lifer. I'm definitely pro-choice. But both sides of this debate always try to simplify the issue and mark a line in the sand. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to mark that line. Terminating a pregnancy isn't an easy decision. Any attempt to make it easy by saying "it's a clump of cells" is really just trying to avoid the obvious ethical and moral dilemma that abortion represents.

I think that in order to have a meaningful debate, the complexity of the issue has to be acknowledged. Both sides can make valid arguments; neither is completely rock-solid and obviously correct, as far as I'm concerned. I think that as a society we have to acknowledge that abortion is a distasteful thing wrought with emotional and moral implications. That doesn't mean it's wrong. In our society we do lots of distasteful and ethically questionable things, because doing those things allows for the pursuit of a greater good.

--- D

Will the heart continue to beat. Will the lungs continue to take in air, however poorly. Can nourishment be assimilated. I'm not talking about whether or not the creature can gather grains and nuts, or take down game for dinner.

 

[Freestyle72]

I think it's mainly a religious argument. Most religious people believe that when I woman gets pregnant a "soul" is basically assigned to that clump of cells. Kill the cells where does the soul go?

 

[fastar1]

For all those that are for unwanted children being born...

I just want to point out that nobody has made that argument here.

 

[Duster929]

Will the heart continue to beat. Will the lungs continue to take in air, however poorly. Can nourishment be assimilated. I'm not talking about whether or not the creature can gather grains and nuts, or take down game for dinner.

There's lots of old folks that don't meet that test, without a heck of a lot of medication, and some without mechanical intervention. If that's the standard, is it ethically acceptable to terminate their lives? Again, I'm not passing judgement. Many people would answer the question yes, and I'm not sure that's wrong. I'm just saying it's not so clear-cut.

And maybe it doesn't apply to old people then, maybe the test is only for babies. How many weeks before birth would a baby's heart continue to beat or take in air, if they were born early?

I really hate taking the pro-life stance in these arguments, because it's not my position. But I get drawn into it because I have yet to see a compelling and clearly defensible line drawn.

 

[Duster929]

I think it's mainly a religious argument. Most religious people believe that when I woman gets pregnant a "soul" is basically assigned to that clump of cells. Kill the cells where does the soul go?

No, I don't think it's only a religious argument. Many people believe that when a woman gets pregnant, a life is created, that, taken care of properly, has a future. That future has potential to contribute to the world in a positive way, just like all living people. I don't think the argument is about "the soul". The argument is more about taking away a potential future.

In fact, in the Catholic religion (which is the most pro-life, I think), babies don't actually become recognized by God until they're baptized. So if they die before they're baptized, they don't get to go to heaven. Or they're recognized by God, but they're sinners, so they can't ascend to heaven until they're baptized. I don't really remember my catechism on this point, I just remember thinking it was kind of a raw deal for the new kid.

 

[RockerGuy]

So you're sure that humans become conscious the second they exit from the womb? Not an hour before, or a week before, or a couple of months before? Do the doctors run a "consciousness test" on fetuses at some point during the pregnancy?

The "consciousness" measure isn't a really good one. Mostly because it can't really be measured.

I think you might be confusing "conscience" and "conscious"
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/conscience.htm

 

[AdRath]

So you're sure that humans become conscious the second they exit from the womb? Not an hour before, or a week before, or a couple of months before? Do the doctors run a "consciousness test" on fetuses at some point during the pregnancy?

The "consciousness" measure isn't a really good one. Mostly because it can't really be measured.

A child becomes conscious long before it leaves the womb. Its pretty cut and dry science on when a fetus can sense and react and is alive and more than just a combination of cells like a zygote. consciousness most certainly can be measured.

There's lots of old folks that don't meet that test, without a heck of a lot of medication, and some without mechanical intervention. If that's the standard, is it ethically acceptable to terminate their lives? Again, I'm not passing judgement. Many people would answer the question yes, and I'm not sure that's wrong. I'm just saying it's not so clear-cut.

And maybe it doesn't apply to old people then, maybe the test is only for babies. How many weeks before birth would a baby's heart continue to beat or take in air, if they were born early?

I really hate taking the pro-life stance in these arguments, because it's not my position. But I get drawn into it because I have yet to see a compelling and clearly defensible line drawn.

A child can survive outside the womb in the 3rd trimester with assistance. A co-worker had a child born 4 months early. I was born 6 weeks early. These measurements can be determined. Its not a fact that it can't be measured the issue is that religious people believe the moment cells combine it has a soul. That can't be measured as its based on no science. If you take religion out of it then its pretty clear cut.

 

[AdRath]

I think it's mainly a religious argument. Most religious people believe that when I woman gets pregnant a "soul" is basically assigned to that clump of cells. Kill the cells where does the soul go?

According to the bible a childs soul goes to heaven. Isn't that were they all want to go anyway?

 

[AdRath]

I just want to point out that nobody has made that argument here.

Supporting the birthing of a child to parents that don't want it or are unable to properly care for it (anti-abortion) has been made here or at the very least implied.

 

[dpmachine]

In fact, in the Catholic religion (which is the most pro-life, I think), babies don't actually become recognized by God until they're baptized. So if they die before they're baptized, they don't get to go to heaven. Or they're recognized by God, but they're sinners, so they can't ascend to heaven until they're baptized. I don't really remember my catechism on this point, I just remember thinking it was kind of a raw deal for the new kid.

Read the newspaper once in a while. They did away with limbo. Instead of having gone to limbo for centuries as people have thought, it turns out all those babies really went to heaven.

 

[Duster929]

I think you might be confusing "conscience" and "conscious"
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/conscience.htm

No. I'm not. I'm well aware of the difference in meaning between the two words.

 

[Duster929]

A child becomes conscious long before it leaves the womb. Its pretty cut and dry science on when a fetus can sense and react and is alive and more than just a combination of cells like a zygote. consciousness most certainly can be measured.



A child can survive outside the womb in the 3rd trimester with assistance. A co-worker had a child born 4 months early. I was born 6 weeks early. These measurements can be determined. Its not a fact that it can't be measured the issue is that religious people believe the moment cells combine it has a soul. That can't be measured as its based on no science. If you take religion out of it then its pretty clear cut.

Are you saying then, that this consciousness test should be made before an abortion is allowed? So pre-consciousness, it's a removal of cells, but post-consciousness, it's murder? I suppose that's an objective enough test for me. Maybe that's a clear enough line, but I still think it's not going to sit right with a lot of folks.

Or perhaps we go by trimester, as per the second part of your post. Within the first 2 trimesters, it's a removal of cells. In the 3rd trimester, it's murder?

Again, it sounds like a clear line, but it really isn't....

 

[Duster929]

Read the newspaper once in a while. They did away with limbo. Instead of having gone to limbo for centuries as people have thought, it turns out all those babies really went to heaven.

That was in the news? Was it a press release from God? Or results from the Hubble Space Telescope? You're right, I must have not read the Globe the day they went public with that bombshell. Lucky babies! And we worried about them for all those centuries!

 

[AdRath]

Are you saying then, that this consciousness test should be made before an abortion is allowed? So pre-consciousness, it's a removal of cells, but post-consciousness, it's murder? I suppose that's an objective enough test for me. Maybe that's a clear enough line, but I still think it's not going to sit right with a lot of folks.

I'd be fine with that. For the record I don't support late term abortions unless absolutely necessary to save the mothers life.

Early abortions which have a small window to decide (shortly after the pregnancy is detectable) it is just a matter of removing a clump of cells. A lot of folks might not like it but its not like it is mandatory.

I would only support abortion in the first trimester btw. I was just pointing out that in the 3rd trimester a childs life can be sustained outside the womb with help as per what Rob was suggesting.

 

[Duster929]

I'd be fine with that. For the record I don't support late term abortions unless absolutely necessary to save the mothers life.

Early abortions which have a small window to decide (shortly after the pregnancy is detectable) it is just a matter of removing a clump of cells. A lot of folks might not like it but its not like it is mandatory.

I would only support abortion in the first trimester btw. I was just pointing out that in the 3rd trimester a childs life can be sustained outside the womb with help as per what Rob was suggesting.

I generally agree with your point of view. My only point was that under scrutiny, it's difficult to have a rock-solid set of criteria. Your position is based on the "clump of cells" idea, and you've decided that your cut-off is the first trimester. That isn't based on consciousness, or solo viability either. It's kind of an arbitrary line.

 

[AdRath]

I generally agree with your point of view. My only point was that under scrutiny, it's difficult to have a rock-solid set of criteria. Your position is based on the "clump of cells" idea, and you've decided that your cut-off is the first trimester. That isn't based on consciousness, or solo viability either. It's kind of an arbitrary line.

it is shortly after the first trimester I believe when consciousness is developed and the fetus becomes 'aware'. Also the first trimester leaves some leeway in the 'Just to be on the safe side which is why I settled on that.

Honestly I agree with the guidelines as they are. I've been through the process of abortion (as a supportive partner) and also have 2 wonderful kids with my wife. Having seen both sides I have formed my opinion. I never want to force my opinion on someone but I can't help but roll my eyes at those equating early abortion to murder and those who believe once a child is conceived it should be born no matter the circumstances it is born into.

 

[Duster929]

it is shortly after the first trimester I believe when consciousness is developed and the fetus becomes 'aware'. Also the first trimester leaves some leeway in the 'Just to be on the safe side which is why I settled on that.

Honestly I agree with the guidelines as they are. I've been through the process of abortion (as a supportive partner) and also have 2 wonderful kids with my wife. Having seen both sides I have formed my opinion. I never want to force my opinion on someone but I can't help but roll my eyes at those equating early abortion to murder and those who believe once a child is conceived it should be born no matter the circumstances it is born into.

Just going to throw something out there. Don't make the gut, knee-jerk reaction that is so easy. Think about this for a second.

What if we said that abortion is killing, but it's not necessarily murder. That could be logically consistent, but still allow room for a pro-choice point of view.

 

[unL33T]

Another issue that comes up when you start thinking of a fetus as just a "clump of cells" is when someone does something to an expectant mother that results in the loss of her baby. If it's just a "clump of cells" then it's not big deal, right? But if you're a happy expectant couple you're not going to be too pleased about it.