A lot of people would agree that at some point in time the unborn ought be considered as having certain protections. The question though is at what point during the course of a pregnancy does/should that consideration first occur? After-all, a single-celled zygote for instance is a far cry from a fully developed (and born) LGBT or other minority. My personal view on this is that Pain Perception and or Mental Life/Consciousness should be considered as the gold standards for when it comes to determining at what point during development a fetus should be granted protection by law. i.e. I believe that one of the following cutoff points/ranges (gestational) and justifications should be used: -Thalamic Afferents (Week 20): Because its been theorized that connections between afferents may be capable of pain transmission -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 23): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Thalamocortical Fibers -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 23-29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 20-29): Because this is the period in which a fetus develops the structures necessary for pain perception -Mental Life (Week 29): Because fetal consciousness cannot and has not been observed to occur before this point Others however seem to really favor the cutoff of Viability (Week 24) as the standard instead... a very popular choice... which is fine by me, because when you get right down to it, that cutoff still lines up nicely within the ranges based off of Pain Perception and Mental Life/Consciousness. But whatever one's ideal is on this particular issue, its been clear to me for a long time that this is one in which compromise is needed if any of us really ever want to truly put the issue to rest. Something such as the following for example: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-abortion-reform-compromise.550627/ Is there anything terribly wrong with such a compromise... would it not act as the most suitable middle ground for those whos views on the issue differ to agree upon?... -Meta
What is terribly wrong with the woman deciding? What are the consequences? If you can get pregnant and you get pregnant you decide. Those who can't, don't.
More scientific study should be done, but I fear any scientific study will likely be hopelessly biased, in this social/political climate. Maybe we should outsource our scientific research to a country like Japan or Russia. The pain perception is not necessarily the standard that should be used, because it is possible the mental faculties are there even before the organism is pain sense capable. (i.e. no one would argue killing is okay just because the victim has been anesthetized)
If you can get pregnant, and you do get pregnant, maybe you have already decided, from one standpoint. What is terribly wrong with her not deciding? If she waits too long... A horrible mangled death versus likely a few stretch marks and a swollen belly for a couple of months.
No, the word "choice" in the abortion issue means a choice between gestation or abortion. Stretch marks and a swollen belly ? That's all you think women go through growing another human??? Uh, I know you think science is just a leftist-plot but it really isn't....it's all about those things righties hate , FACTS. FACTS like the following: Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy: exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) altered appetite and senses of taste and smell nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) heartburn and indigestion constipation weight gain dizziness and light-headedness bloating, swelling, fluid retention hemmorhoids abdominal cramps yeast infections congested, bloody nose acne and mild skin disorders skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) mild to severe backache and strain increased headaches difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping increased urination and incontinence bleeding gums pica breast pain and discharge swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint paininfection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) extreme pain on delivery hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover) Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy: stretch marks (worse in younger women) loose skin permanent weight gain or redistribution abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) changes to breasts increased foot size varicose veins scarring from episiotomy or c-section other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) increased proclivity for hemmorhoids loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Occasional complications and side effects: complications of episiotomy spousal/partner abuse hyperemesis gravidarum temporary and permanent injury to back severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) gestational diabetes placenta previa anemia (which can be life-threatening) thrombocytopenic purpura severe cramping embolism (blood clots) medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) hormonal imbalance ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) severe post-partum depression and psychosis research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Less common (but serious) complications: peripartum cardiomyopathy cardiopulmonary arrest magnesium toxicity severe hypoxemia/acidosis massive embolism increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) malignant arrhythmia circulatory collapse placental abruption obstetric fistula More permanent side effects: future infertility permanent disability death. BTW, feel free to present evidence and proof that pregnancy ONLY causes a swollen belly and stretch marks...
Unless the mother decides to keep the offspring (which happens to be the majority result of pregnancy) then something is forced on someone; either on the offspring, or on the mother. So neither pro-life nor pro-choice is anti-force in that aspect. But we don't protect them from taking from others, but from others taking from them. The offspring takes from the mother, not the other way around. Bodily autonomy still trumps over all.
If you can break a leg, and you do break a leg, maybe you have already decided to break a leg, from one standpoint.
You failed to show 1) that the arguments are hypothetical and 2) that these arguments are invalid. In any case a woman having control over her own body is not a "hypothetical" - it is called essential liberty - respect for which is the principle on which this nation was founded. The arguments of the anti aborts on the other hand consist mostly of fallacious nonsense. Even the name "Pro Life" is misleading. Pro lifers are not "Pro Life" - at least not the ones that eat plants or animals. we hear slogans " Choose life" WTF does this even mean ? - while one munches on plants and animals.. Ohhh .. Human life .. that is what we are supposed to infer. But so what .. what about "Human life" am I choosing ? Is every sperm sacred .. being both human and alive ? Who can make any logical sense out of this BS .. answere ? NO ONE - because that is what is intended. None of the anti abort arguments make any legal sense. "Killing Babies" - what babies - prove the zygote (single human cell at conception) is a baby .. what kind of stupidity is this. We all know that a single human cell is not a baby.
Why do you, and other Anti-Choicers, denigrate what women (including your own MOTHERS) go through to bring "precious life" into this world? You have been shown many times what pregnancy does to a woman's body and it goes far beyond ""a few stretch marks and a swollen belly for a couple of months"". Why do you continually claim that with no proof but are always shown blatant evidence to the contrary which you can't seem to see??
I understand the sentiment but disagree that it's ONLY the pregnant one's choice. Admittedly, I have no ideas on how this can be accomplished, but I believe the father of the fetus should have some type of role in the decision. Why should men be forced to just accept whatever decision his partner chooses?
FoxHastings said: ↑ And , if a woman is pregnant there are only two options or choices...there are NOT a "lot of other options"......and even if there were it's the pregnant ones choice. First, it isn't his body. Second, he has no right to force a woman to gestate OR abort. ( Why should women be forced to just accept whatever decision her partner chooses?) Third, HE will not undergo 9 months of body changing/damaging pregnancy. Fourth, having sex with a woman does not make her the man's property. If a couple wants to discuss whether to go through with the pregnancy that's one thing but only ONE is pregnant and it's their ultimate decision that matters..
I never suggested it was. I also never said that he should FORCE a woman to gestate or abort. I also didn't say the woman had to accept whatever decision the father of her baby chooses. No, he won't. It's biologically impossible at this time. I think there was a big hoopla over a guy getting pregnant but the possibility of it "catching on" is probably nil. I have never even suggested that anybody was anybody's property in either direction. I believe that he has the right to decide if he wants a child and the opportunity to raise his child if they can agree for the mother to carry the baby to term. She could give up all her parenting rights and he can be a single dad. In fairness, all these topics should be discussed BEFORE sex happens, but we know it doesn't often work that way. To me, it is not a matter of pro-choice or anti-abortion. I'm advocating for there to be more options for men to have their children if they want to take the responsibility. I've known many women that use abortion as their personal birth control options. In a few of those, the baby's father was completely denied any input in the matter. It's no wonder SOME men find it so easy to "go for a pack of cigarettes". They've been made "footnotes" in their child/ren's lives since conception.
"""""MJ Davies said: ↑ I understand the sentiment but disagree that it's ONLY the pregnant one's choice. Admittedly, I have no ideas on how this can be accomplished, but I believe the father of the fetus should have some type of role in the decision. Why should men be forced to just accept whatever decision his partner chooses? Click to expand...""""""""""""""" FoxHastings :First, it isn't his body. Second, he has no right to force a woman to gestate OR abort. ( Why should women be forced to just accept whatever decision her partner chooses?) Third, HE will not undergo 9 months of body changing/damaging pregnancy. Fourth, having sex with a woman does not make her the man's property. If a couple wants to discuss whether to go through with the pregnancy that's one thing but only ONE is pregnant and it's their ultimate decision that matters.. I was answering a question of yours bolded above. NO where did I accuse you of anything....why so defensive? He does....as soon as he gets pregnant HE can decide if he wants to gestate or abort. Nothing stopping that now.... LOL...first you say women use abortion as birth control ...then men "go for a cigarette" WTF are you talking about...??? If there was an abortion where did these "children" come from ?? LOL
You are conflating two different things. What one's responsibilities are when a child of theirs is born, and what one can do with one's own body. The key to understanding this is looking at an not oft used, but not uncommon method, surrogacy. In today's world, we now have the ability to take a couple's sperm and egg, combine them and then implant it into a surrogate's womb (IVF). The more traditional surrogacy method is where the father to be inseminates, either naturally or via artificial insemination, the surrogate, in which case the child genetically is the man's and the surrogate's. So we are going to concentrate on the IVF method to keep genetic lines clear. In such a case, genetically, the offspring belongs to the mother and father, and the surrogate has no genetic connection. If we look at a case where the genetic mother is the one carrying the offspring, she has the right to have said offspring removed from her body. Since medical technology and knowledge are not yet to that level, this results in the termination of the offspring. In the case of the surrogate, however, the genetic mother cannot force the surrogate to terminate the offspring. The genetic mother has no more say in the matter than the genetic father does. This shows that neither parent has the right to terminate the offspring per se', nor any right to abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities outright. The right that is present is that of bodily autonomy. The results of exercising that right to end a pregnancy also results in the termination of the offspring. You are making the common error of mistaking the results of a right as being a right in and of itself. If the genetic mother indeed had a right to terminate her offspring during the gestation period, then she would have that right regardless of where the offspring was gestating.
FoxHastings, I was not trying to defensive and I apologize if it came off that way. "Going out for a pack of cigarettes" is a euphemism for a man abandoning his family. Maquiscat, thank you for taking the time explain this. I understand your point.
I have so often had it asked why we keep debating the topic, because people have already made up their minds. This shows that not all have. I have even had some people who still didn't agree with me who at least acknowledged the logic. I look forward to encountering more around here.
You have to quote the person you are addressing so they get an alert and know someone responded. And you left off a lot of my post especially the last question : "If there was an abortion where did these "children" come from ?? LOL""
No, they aren't, for the following reason. Prohibition of services and products society wants causes more problems and it doesn't stop the service or product, it just drives it underground. Moreover, if your argument is to repeal R v W, to be consistent in that point of view, you MUST disallow abortions for rape caused fetuses. Repeal of R v W would result in the lives of young teenage girls being butchered and killed due to back alley and otherwise underground/black market abortions, subject to inferior abortionists, including those that are self-inflicted. Where you might be reading about history, I remember it. My sister was almost killed when, at the age of 15, she got pregnant ( this was mid 60s ) and she, without telling me or anyone in the family that she got pregnant, decided to have an abortion outside the safety of a professional clinic (which wasn't possible because abortion was illegal). Her story is typical of what it was like before Roe v Wade. GLM and WLM Girls Lives Matter and Women's Lives Matter, noting that these women are among the already born. I hate abortion just as much as my opposition does, but R v W falls into a category I call ' a necessary evil '. I know the right will say ' well, if she does that, it's on her'. Prohibition of things that are needed in society always causes more problems that it solves as it drives it underground, and history proves this Moreover, repeal would result in a disproportional number of lower income women being injured or killed, as the affluent can fly to other countries where it is legal. Repealing R v W will NOT stop abortion just as prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption. Note that during prohibition liquor was made in dirty warehouses, bath tubs, the quality of liquor was terrible and unsafe. Prohibition does not work, it causes more problems that it will solve, and it doesn't stop abortions. Roe v Wade is about respecting the privacy of one's body, getting the state out of medical decisions which should only be between patient and a doctor. Republicans assert 'they are the party of small government' except when they aren't.
I don't. "The unborn" implies it is nothingness and that which is not cannot have rights. When and where to draw the line is entirely up the indivifdual case woman and doctor. The State has nothing to do in her womb. But, I guess Republicans are not really against socialised health care. Only at birth.
A mother brings a being into a world that it will eventually die in and leave. She has already decided its fate. It is not complicated to extend logic and allow the woman the choice in this matter. Let her accept any onus, as nature has already put responsibility on her. The woman should be the one to decide.
The woman only gets to decide when the other in question is pulling upon her bodily resources. A genetic mother does not get to choose to have an abortion done on a surrogate carrying her baby. The surrogate on the other hand does get to choose whether or not to have the abortion. While she may still have to suffer the consequences of breech of contract ( a separate issue from the abortion itself), she would suffer no legal consequences from the abortion. Likewise, neither woman can choose to terminate the child once out of their body. Keep in mind that to terminate the child means to kill it outright. This is not the same as it is dying, let it expire on its own. We make that decision for our family all the time. I had to make that call just two months ago for my mother.
But the question is, why should the woman get that right? Look, I think many of us may be just taking this for granted. Assuming the woman automatically has the right to bodily rights. But here is a situation where the life of someone else is in conflict with her normal bodily rights. And on top of that, the woman is likely very much responsible for putting that new life in conflict with her own rights. (And yes, even in the case of rape, why didn't the woman know there might be a problem and take care of things much sooner? Not to mention the fact that less than 1 percent of abortions are actually due to rape) It's also a mistake to just assume that the woman's bodily rights are "equal" to those of the fetus, since we are not talking about the same sort of rights. (We are talking about the right of the woman not to be pregnant versus the right to life of the fetus)
