<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 12:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And at what point does this go from being less human to being different enough to consider killing of the fetus to be ethical? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The third tri-mester.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 29 2003, 10:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 29 2003, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 12:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And at what point does this go from being less human to being different enough to consider killing of the fetus to be ethical? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The third tri-mester. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks to surfactant, babies can be born before the third tri-mester and later grow up completely healthy. Would you say that such a premature newborn is sufficiently "not human" for killing it to be ethical?
As a point of reference, here is such a baby. (Just in case some of us are unclear on how developed a fetus is before the third trimester.)
You asked what is considered the last limits of an ethical abortion, I gave the answer, and all else falls under the realm of opinion and circumstance. (I didn't notice the picture of what the mother that gave birth to that child had to go through)
Of course third tri-mester abortions are rare, and extreme. But for some reason late term abortions are the entire focus of pro-life groups.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 29 2003, 10:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 29 2003, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You asked what is considered the last limits of an ethical abortion, I gave the answer, and all else falls under the realm of opinion and circumstance. (I didn't notice the picture of what the mother that gave birth to that child had to go through)
Of course third tri-mester abortions are rare, and extreme. But for some reason late term abortions are the entire focus of pro-life groups. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> AFAIK, premature births are in fact easier on the mother, because the kid is smaller. I assure you that someone getting a C-section in the ninth month of pregnancy, or undergoing natural childbirth, has a much harder time of things. (Aborting that kid instead of bringing him out alive probably wouldn't be that pleasant for the mother either - at that stage of development there'd be a lot of kicking and thrashing around.)
Late term abortions tend to be the focus of pro-life groups because they're the most obviously morally abhorrent type of abortion. What point is there trying to convince someone to disallow second-trimester abortions if you can't even get them to agree that third-trimester abortions are bad? Believe it or not, there are still many people who, when asked when a baby becomes "a living human worthy of protection," will say "at the moment of birth and not one moment sooner." It's this viewpoint that pro-lifers want to fight the hardest against.
As far as I know pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal, which would mean abortions even 4 to 6 weeks from conception which are very common would be disallowed as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--Teflon+Aug 29 2003, 01:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Teflon @ Aug 29 2003, 01:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> RU-486? Aborting the 'human baby' when it what? Consists of 4 cells? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly if people have any thought in their mind that they may be pregnant with an unwanted baby they can take that before the egg has even grown bigger than plankton.
How can you justify killing a baby because it's unwanted? Because you want to go on leading an irresponsible lifestyle with no consequences, and because it's more convenient?
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 08:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you justify killing a baby because it's unwanted? Because you want to go on leading an irresponsible lifestyle with no consequences, and because it's more convenient? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But again, is that your choice to make? It IS their life, not yours.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 29 2003, 10:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 29 2003, 10:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As far as I know pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal, which would mean abortions even 4 to 6 weeks from conception which are very common would be disallowed as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It depends. I consider myself "pro-life", but I'm okay with stuff like RU486, and I wouldn't even fight that hard against abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy.
Similarly, I tend to peg "pro-choice" people as supporting abortion up to the instant of birth, but I'm sure that's not necessarily true for everyone who labels themselves as pro-choice.
Hrm, another argument based on moral relativity. Let's just say that we'll disregard that, because you could argue that no one has the right to judge whether another's lifestyle is good or bad, but like Samwise said in the science thread, "that doesn't do anyone any good"
<!--QuoteBegin--alius42+Aug 29 2003, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (alius42 @ Aug 29 2003, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 08:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you justify killing a baby because it's unwanted? Because you want to go on leading an irresponsible lifestyle with no consequences, and because it's more convenient? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But again, is that your choice to make? It IS their life, not yours. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The question is, whose life is the baby's?
This is the question the entire abortion debate rages around, obviously. I bring it up only to point out the uselessness of statements like "the mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body." Nobody denies your right over your OWN body, but pro-lifers question whether the child you carry is really a part of your body that you should have absolute control over, or a distinct entity that should be protected.
And the same can be said over why a parent is responsible for their child for the first 18 years of their life. And this is just semantics and word games. The fact is that if the pro-lifers got their way a woman who got pregnant found about it 10 days later, decided that in her current circumstance she couldn't have a child, it would be illegal for her to get an abortion. Now if you think that 10 days after conception there is something in her body that requires civil rights under enforced legislation I would tell you you were wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 29 2003, 03:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 29 2003, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And the same can be said over why a parent is responsible for their child for the first 18 years of their life. And this is just semantics and word games. The fact is that if the pro-lifers got their way a woman who got pregnant found about it 10 days later, decided that in her current circumstance she couldn't have a child, it would be illegal for her to get an abortion. Now if you think that 10 days after conception there is something in her body that requires civil rights under enforced legislation I would tell you you were wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd be willing to concede that a 10-day old fetus is not sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection.
Will you concede that a 6-month old fetus IS sufficiently developed that it shouldn't be viewed as a "parasite" to be removed?
And frankly, the thing of "if the pro-lifers got their way..." isn't productive. You complained earlier about pro-lifers focusing on third-trimester abortions, but here you are stooping to the same tactics. "If the pro-choicers had their way, you could stick a knife in a baby's head as it emerges from the womb and draws its first breath of air!" "If the pro-lifers had their way, you could be given the death penalty for taking RU486!" Blah blah blah blah blah. I don't think that really helps anyone. I've already said I agree that abortions done <i>very early on</i> are probably okay. Why are you pressing the point?
I'm pressing this point because like I said earlier <i>most abortions happen within 4 to 6 weeks of conception</i> and <i>late term abortions are rare and extreme cases</i>. Don't you think it's logical to focus on the majority of cases and not decide to pass sweeping legislation on a minority of them? And if I can be candid on this subject I'd say late term abortions would actually happen less if there wasn't this stigma around them prolefirated by pro-life advocates.
And I don't have to conceed anything because my reasoning isn't based around whether or not the fetus is human. The fact is I think death can be more humane than a life of misery.
So in one post you argued based on the 10 day case, but then you spun around and said that we should legislate based on 4 to 6 weeks. Make up your mind. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If 4 to 6 weeks is it, would you be willing to just say that abortions are legal if performed before the 7th week OR if there are extenuating circumstances such as medical risk or rape? That'd probably make a lot of pro-life advocates much happier. Remember, it's not like the law can only go one of two ways.
As for death being more humane than a life of misery - would you also be willing to say that it's okay to kill a newborn baby if in the mother's judgement, the baby will not have a happy life? In fact, would it not be MORE humane, since then the baby could be killed in a much less painful fashion than that in which most abortions are performed? I will NOT fault you for saying this, because it would be COMPLETELY consistent with what you just argued, and I admire consistency. I have only ever heard ONE pro-choice advocate who makes an argument for abortion being humane and then follows it through to the logical conclusion of infanticide being humane.
Where did I say legislation should be based on the 4 to 6 week period, the only thing I said was this was a common range for abortions. I am perfectly content with the current three tri-mester laws.
If anyone is spinning things it is you. You want people to conceed things and then if they won't you say what about baby killing. As for being consistent you say killing a 10 day old fetus is ok killing a 6 month old fetus isn't. See it works both ways.
Honestly if a child is born into unfit circumstances and then goes on to be raised by unfit parents they will probably end up dying anyway, teenage suicide rates are pretty high these days.
You didn't comment on the fact that the negative stigma around abortion can actual lead to those extreme late term abortions. It was an edit so I assume that's why you didn't notice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where did I say legislation should be based on the 4 to 6 week period, the only thing I said was this was a common range for abortions. I am perfectly content with the current three tri-mester laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was right here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->most abortions happen within 4 to 6 weeks of conception and late term abortions are rare and extreme cases. Don't you think it's logical to focus on the majority of cases and not decide to pass sweeping legislation on a minority of them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're saying we should pass legislation based on the majority of cases, i. e. 4 to 6 weeks, according to your figures. Previously you were arguing based on the 10 day case. I'm saying, fine, let's not let the two extremes affect each other, and instead place the marker in the middle. You say that abortions should be legal at 10 days, and I'm inclined to agree with you (I'm not certain about the moral issue, but at 10 days I'm willing to say that the state doesn't need to be involved). However, legalizing late-term abortions is not necessary to legalize very early-term abortions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If anyone is spinning things it is you. You want people to conceed things and then if they won't you say what about baby killing. As for being consistent you say killing a 10 day old fetus is ok killing a 6 month old fetus isn't. See it works both ways.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm being perfectly consistent. I've been saying throughout this entire discussion that something should be up for serious consideration as a human life by the time it has a developed brain, and should definitely be considered a human life once it's able to survive birth. A 10 day old fetus doesn't have much in the way of a brain, and it wouldn't survive birth. A 6 month old fetus does and would.
If there's an inconsistency in anything I've just said, please point it out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly if a child is born into unfit circumstances and then goes on to be raised by unfit parents they will probably end up dying anyway, teenage suicide rates are pretty high these days.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're ignoring adoption, and I still haven't seen a single reference to figures indicating babies put up for adoption, at least in this country, that don't end up in perfectly good homes. And you also make a really outrageous claim there about unfit parents - lots of people survive downright abusive parents and turn out glad to be alive (once they've moved out). But I'll even let those two unsubstantiated claims slide (don't think I'll do it again) and repeat my question - is it humane, then, to end their lives directly after birth, since they're probably going to commit suicide anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You didn't comment on the fact that the negative stigma around abortion can actual lead to those extreme late term abortions. It was an edit so I assume that's why you didn't notice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think regulating abortion a bit more would increase the stigma around it. It'd encourage people to do it early or not at all. Clearly, you feel differently. Honestly, I don't think either of us is qualified to predict which way it would swing, so let's leave prognostication out of the discussion. Deal?
So what is inconsistent about me saying that a 5 month old fetus can be aborted but a 6 month old one can't if it works in reverse? Fine for the sake of argument I say a fetus isn't human for the first 6 months. And if you draw the line at when a child can succesfully be born there have been cases of 9 moth old children not surviving child birth, again it works both ways.
Here are your statistics on adoption <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factshee...eets/foster.cfm</a>, not only do many kids not find homes recent investigations shows that there have been many cases where the agencies have put kids into extremely abusive enviorments. I will also like to add that not only is a child that is born unwanted have a higher risk of suicide, but has also a higher chance to be brought up in poverty, have poor education, be arrested, abuse drugs, and have unsafe sex which could ultimately lead to another unwanted birth. These are probabilities based on a.) if the child is raised in an abusive/negletful enviorment b.) if the child is brought up in foster care with no real guidance.
And the negative stigma isn't something that will happen because of legislation it is something that exists right now. There are people who propegate the idea that anyone who gets an abortion is a slut or a sinner, or a baby killer. There are children raised by relegious parents who would be so terrified to admit they accidently got pregnant that they would hide this fact, and most likely either end up having a late abortion or being forced to give birth to a child they can't support in anyway, and could very possibly be disowned by parents depending on their beliefs.
So as far as the stigma having an effect or not, it already does.
I will end for now by saying if you want rational, objective, and non-semantical points on this subject read Coil's post in this thread.
D, the link you posted was posted earlier. I dismissed it as irrelevant because it didn't say anything about the children in question being babies. This time I took a closer look. Turns out my gut reaction was right.
Median age of those included in the study entering foster care: 8.7 years. We are not debating quality of adoption and foster care for 8.7 year olds. Or even 1 year olds. We're talking about newborn adoptions, which I maintain are a guaranteed thing in this country at this time. Show me documentation to the contrary.
I read Coil's post and agreed with him on a few major points. He made a lot of sense.
If the negative stigma is unaffected by legislation, it's not germane to this discussion, which was originally based on the topic of whether abortion is a right.
D, I will mail you $20 right now if you will just answer my question about whether, according to your value system, it's humane to kill a healthy newborn child (and can then rationally defend your value system as consistent if you say that it isn't).
My value system doesn't revolve around freak occurences like yours seems to. A fetus that is born before the 6 month period isn't human until it ages that extra month, boom there you go consistence. So no killing a 9 month old baby isn't humane, I'l PM you a P.O. box you can send that $20 bucks to.
Ah, now you have to defend it, though. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I don't have to conceed anything because my reasoning isn't based around whether or not the fetus is human. The fact is I think death can be more humane than a life of misery. ... Honestly if a child is born into unfit circumstances and then goes on to be raised by unfit parents they will probably end up dying anyway, teenage suicide rates are pretty high these days. ... So no killing a 9 month old baby isn't humane<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Death can be more humane than a life of misery, regardless of whether the individual being killed is human or not. If a child is born into unfit circumstances, he/she is doomed to a life of misery. Killing that child ASAP, even after birth, must therefore be more humane than letting it live.
Not effected yet by the comments made later on, here is an unbiased view made by someone like me! Kida!
Honestly, every human being should be given complete freedom of choice to do whatever they want in their life, whether it be killing or having sex and then aborting it. Their will be consequences later on, whether it be guilt or a sentence in jail, but both ways your screwed later and there is no turning back. Some people are forced to kill something they don't want.... Allright, I don't have a problem, but if that person is faced in a position, where she couldn't afford it or whatnot and decided to have the baby, cudos to her, it is these type of people that I admire. But yes, there are probably cases where it is hard to force morals instead of logic and life is like that all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Aug 29 2003, 05:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Aug 29 2003, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Honestly, every human being should be given complete freedom of choice to do whatever they want in their life, whether it be killing or having sex <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> *HIGH FIVE*
As a longtime anarchist, I agree with you 100%. Care to join me later for some pillaging, killing, plundering, and debauchery? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not going to get into why libertarianism is a self-defeating system, but I am still confused as to why or how people are justifying "a baby with 4 cells and an hour into pregnancy" should morally or legally be different than a 6-month old fetus.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 09:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not going to get into why libertarianism is a self-defeating system, but I am still confused as to why or how people are justifying "a baby with 4 cells and an hour into pregnancy" should morally or legally be different than a 6-month old fetus. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because it is?
Which one of those four cells is a baby exactly? Anyway read the first 8 pages every single point has been made and re-made, pretty sure this discussion is done.
Comments
The third tri-mester.
The third tri-mester. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks to surfactant, babies can be born before the third tri-mester and later grow up completely healthy. Would you say that such a premature newborn is sufficiently "not human" for killing it to be ethical?
As a point of reference, here is such a baby. (Just in case some of us are unclear on how developed a fetus is before the third trimester.)
<img src='http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/ular/baby1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Of course third tri-mester abortions are rare, and extreme. But for some reason late term abortions are the entire focus of pro-life groups.
Of course third tri-mester abortions are rare, and extreme. But for some reason late term abortions are the entire focus of pro-life groups. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
AFAIK, premature births are in fact easier on the mother, because the kid is smaller. I assure you that someone getting a C-section in the ninth month of pregnancy, or undergoing natural childbirth, has a much harder time of things. (Aborting that kid instead of bringing him out alive probably wouldn't be that pleasant for the mother either - at that stage of development there'd be a lot of kicking and thrashing around.)
Late term abortions tend to be the focus of pro-life groups because they're the most obviously morally abhorrent type of abortion. What point is there trying to convince someone to disallow second-trimester abortions if you can't even get them to agree that third-trimester abortions are bad? Believe it or not, there are still many people who, when asked when a baby becomes "a living human worthy of protection," will say "at the moment of birth and not one moment sooner." It's this viewpoint that pro-lifers want to fight the hardest against.
Exactly if people have any thought in their mind that they may be pregnant with an unwanted baby they can take that before the egg has even grown bigger than plankton.
But again, is that your choice to make? It IS their life, not yours.
It depends. I consider myself "pro-life", but I'm okay with stuff like RU486, and I wouldn't even fight that hard against abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy.
Similarly, I tend to peg "pro-choice" people as supporting abortion up to the instant of birth, but I'm sure that's not necessarily true for everyone who labels themselves as pro-choice.
But again, is that your choice to make? It IS their life, not yours. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The question is, whose life is the baby's?
This is the question the entire abortion debate rages around, obviously. I bring it up only to point out the uselessness of statements like "the mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body." Nobody denies your right over your OWN body, but pro-lifers question whether the child you carry is really a part of your body that you should have absolute control over, or a distinct entity that should be protected.
I'd be willing to concede that a 10-day old fetus is not sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection.
Will you concede that a 6-month old fetus IS sufficiently developed that it shouldn't be viewed as a "parasite" to be removed?
And frankly, the thing of "if the pro-lifers got their way..." isn't productive. You complained earlier about pro-lifers focusing on third-trimester abortions, but here you are stooping to the same tactics. "If the pro-choicers had their way, you could stick a knife in a baby's head as it emerges from the womb and draws its first breath of air!" "If the pro-lifers had their way, you could be given the death penalty for taking RU486!" Blah blah blah blah blah. I don't think that really helps anyone. I've already said I agree that abortions done <i>very early on</i> are probably okay. Why are you pressing the point?
And I don't have to conceed anything because my reasoning isn't based around whether or not the fetus is human. The fact is I think death can be more humane than a life of misery.
If 4 to 6 weeks is it, would you be willing to just say that abortions are legal if performed before the 7th week OR if there are extenuating circumstances such as medical risk or rape? That'd probably make a lot of pro-life advocates much happier. Remember, it's not like the law can only go one of two ways.
As for death being more humane than a life of misery - would you also be willing to say that it's okay to kill a newborn baby if in the mother's judgement, the baby will not have a happy life? In fact, would it not be MORE humane, since then the baby could be killed in a much less painful fashion than that in which most abortions are performed? I will NOT fault you for saying this, because it would be COMPLETELY consistent with what you just argued, and I admire consistency. I have only ever heard ONE pro-choice advocate who makes an argument for abortion being humane and then follows it through to the logical conclusion of infanticide being humane.
If anyone is spinning things it is you. You want people to conceed things and then if they won't you say what about baby killing. As for being consistent you say killing a 10 day old fetus is ok killing a 6 month old fetus isn't. See it works both ways.
Honestly if a child is born into unfit circumstances and then goes on to be raised by unfit parents they will probably end up dying anyway, teenage suicide rates are pretty high these days.
You didn't comment on the fact that the negative stigma around abortion can actual lead to those extreme late term abortions. It was an edit so I assume that's why you didn't notice.
It was right here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->most abortions happen within 4 to 6 weeks of conception and late term abortions are rare and extreme cases. Don't you think it's logical to focus on the majority of cases and not decide to pass sweeping legislation on a minority of them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're saying we should pass legislation based on the majority of cases, i. e. 4 to 6 weeks, according to your figures. Previously you were arguing based on the 10 day case. I'm saying, fine, let's not let the two extremes affect each other, and instead place the marker in the middle. You say that abortions should be legal at 10 days, and I'm inclined to agree with you (I'm not certain about the moral issue, but at 10 days I'm willing to say that the state doesn't need to be involved). However, legalizing late-term abortions is not necessary to legalize very early-term abortions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If anyone is spinning things it is you. You want people to conceed things and then if they won't you say what about baby killing. As for being consistent you say killing a 10 day old fetus is ok killing a 6 month old fetus isn't. See it works both ways.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm being perfectly consistent. I've been saying throughout this entire discussion that something should be up for serious consideration as a human life by the time it has a developed brain, and should definitely be considered a human life once it's able to survive birth. A 10 day old fetus doesn't have much in the way of a brain, and it wouldn't survive birth. A 6 month old fetus does and would.
If there's an inconsistency in anything I've just said, please point it out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly if a child is born into unfit circumstances and then goes on to be raised by unfit parents they will probably end up dying anyway, teenage suicide rates are pretty high these days.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're ignoring adoption, and I still haven't seen a single reference to figures indicating babies put up for adoption, at least in this country, that don't end up in perfectly good homes. And you also make a really outrageous claim there about unfit parents - lots of people survive downright abusive parents and turn out glad to be alive (once they've moved out). But I'll even let those two unsubstantiated claims slide (don't think I'll do it again) and repeat my question - is it humane, then, to end their lives directly after birth, since they're probably going to commit suicide anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You didn't comment on the fact that the negative stigma around abortion can actual lead to those extreme late term abortions. It was an edit so I assume that's why you didn't notice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think regulating abortion a bit more would increase the stigma around it. It'd encourage people to do it early or not at all. Clearly, you feel differently. Honestly, I don't think either of us is qualified to predict which way it would swing, so let's leave prognostication out of the discussion. Deal?
So what is inconsistent about me saying that a 5 month old fetus can be aborted but a 6 month old one can't if it works in reverse? Fine for the sake of argument I say a fetus isn't human for the first 6 months. And if you draw the line at when a child can succesfully be born there have been cases of 9 moth old children not surviving child birth, again it works both ways.
Here are your statistics on adoption <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factshee...eets/foster.cfm</a>, not only do many kids not find homes recent investigations shows that there have been many cases where the agencies have put kids into extremely abusive enviorments. I will also like to add that not only is a child that is born unwanted have a higher risk of suicide, but has also a higher chance to be brought up in poverty, have poor education, be arrested, abuse drugs, and have unsafe sex which could ultimately lead to another unwanted birth. These are probabilities based on a.) if the child is raised in an abusive/negletful enviorment b.) if the child is brought up in foster care with no real guidance.
And the negative stigma isn't something that will happen because of legislation it is something that exists right now. There are people who propegate the idea that anyone who gets an abortion is a slut or a sinner, or a baby killer. There are children raised by relegious parents who would be so terrified to admit they accidently got pregnant that they would hide this fact, and most likely either end up having a late abortion or being forced to give birth to a child they can't support in anyway, and could very possibly be disowned by parents depending on their beliefs.
So as far as the stigma having an effect or not, it already does.
I will end for now by saying if you want rational, objective, and non-semantical points on this subject read Coil's post in this thread.
<a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm#backfive' target='_blank'>http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factshee...er.cfm#backfive</a>
Median age of those included in the study entering foster care: 8.7 years. We are not debating quality of adoption and foster care for 8.7 year olds. Or even 1 year olds. We're talking about newborn adoptions, which I maintain are a guaranteed thing in this country at this time. Show me documentation to the contrary.
I read Coil's post and agreed with him on a few major points. He made a lot of sense.
If the negative stigma is unaffected by legislation, it's not germane to this discussion, which was originally based on the topic of whether abortion is a right.
D, I will mail you $20 right now if you will just answer my question about whether, according to your value system, it's humane to kill a healthy newborn child (and can then rationally defend your value system as consistent if you say that it isn't).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I don't have to conceed anything because my reasoning isn't based around whether or not the fetus is human. The fact is I think death can be more humane than a life of misery.
...
Honestly if a child is born into unfit circumstances and then goes on to be raised by unfit parents they will probably end up dying anyway, teenage suicide rates are pretty high these days.
...
So no killing a 9 month old baby isn't humane<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Death can be more humane than a life of misery, regardless of whether the individual being killed is human or not. If a child is born into unfit circumstances, he/she is doomed to a life of misery. Killing that child ASAP, even after birth, must therefore be more humane than letting it live.
Not effected yet by the comments made later on, here is an unbiased view made by someone like me! Kida!
Honestly, every human being should be given complete freedom of choice to do whatever they want in their life, whether it be killing or having sex and then aborting it. Their will be consequences later on, whether it be guilt or a sentence in jail, but both ways your screwed later and there is no turning back. Some people are forced to kill something they don't want.... Allright, I don't have a problem, but if that person is faced in a position, where she couldn't afford it or whatnot and decided to have the baby, cudos to her, it is these type of people that I admire. But yes, there are probably cases where it is hard to force morals instead of logic and life is like that all the time.
Good Night and Good day.
*HIGH FIVE*
As a longtime anarchist, I agree with you 100%. Care to join me later for some pillaging, killing, plundering, and debauchery? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Because it is?
Which one of those four cells is a baby exactly? Anyway read the first 8 pages every single point has been made and re-made, pretty sure this discussion is done.