Abortion and social criterion...?

[KillerMuffin]

We've done the pro-choice pro-life thing, but the really good questions were never asked. Most people seem to be in the middle, not really either because both sides have become synonomous with fanatics. It's kind of like watching peewee hockey.

How do you feel about abortion, specifically:

When does the organism go from a "potential human" to a "human?" Why?

Is there a time during pregnancy when a woman's choice is no longer an issue? Why?

Third trimester abortions, called partial-birth abortions, should they be legally allowed across the board? Or only under special circumstances? Why?

If a woman wants to have an abortion past the first tri-mester, should she be legally allowed to for any reason, or only special circumstances? Why?

Should an abortion come at the taxpayers expense, be subsidized, or otherwise financially underwritten by the government? Why?

Is there ever a substiatable conflict between a woman's right to choose and a fetus's right to be born? What would it be, and why?


Note: They were italicized for those who wish to answer it question by question rather than expound in their own way.

 

[Andreina]

Third trimester abortions, called partial-birth abortions, should they be legally allowed across the board? Or only under special circumstances? Why?

My friend's mother had to have an abortion when she was 6 months pregnant because she became critically ill with rubella. The doctors couldn't guarantee that the child would be able to survive nor that she would survive if she wouldn't abort the pregnancy within the next few days.
I think when the mother's life is threatend third-term abortion should not be an issue. Such abortion are especially done when the mother, for example, falls into a coma or develops some other serious illness. It shouldnt be allowed, in my opinion, as a regular abortion for women who "just didnt realise they were pregnant".

Of course the counter-argument could be raised now that I am pro-Choice and do not condem early abortions. I think that a woman has every right to terminate her pregnancy within a limited time frame. She should be old enough and mature enough to decide within the first couple of weeks, not within the first couple of months.

 

[SINthysist]

When does the organism go from a "potential human" to a "human?" Why?

When it takes it's first breath. Before that it is on life-support.


Is there a time during pregnancy when a woman's choice is no longer an issue? Why?

When she has delivered. Then the argument is over (unless it's the age-old threat from parent to child, I brought you into this world...).


Third trimester abortions, called partial-birth abortions, should they be legally allowed across the board? Or only under special circumstances? Why?

Yes. No. Same reason people are allowed to pass on without a code blue. The pre-human it still a part of it's mother.


If a woman wants to have an abortion past the first tri-mester, should she be legally allowed to for any reason, or only special circumstances? Why?

Yes. No. The pre-human within her is her sole property. That is if we still allow ourselves property rights. Your children are you property. So too, an egg, sperm, fetus, spit and should not be taken from you without your express consent.


Should an abortion come at the taxpayers expense, be subsidized, or otherwise financially underwritten by the government? Why?

No. Government is not there to provide womb to the tomb care of citizens. It at best should be a safety net instead of the safety sieve that is incrementally being built. It's law that hospitals have to give care. So if for, medical reasons, someone has to have an abortion, and cannot pay for it, then there are currently methods to deal with the situation.


Is there ever a substiatable conflict between a woman's right to choose and a fetus's right to be born? What would it be, and why?

No.

 

[Calamity Jane]

We've done the pro-choice pro-life thing, but the really good questions were never asked. Most people seem to be in the middle, not really either because both sides have become synonomous with fanatics. It's kind of like watching peewee hockey.

How do you feel about abortion, specifically:

When does the organism go from a "potential human" to a "human?" Why?

When the fetus is viable outside the womb. At that point, it is no longer reliant on the mother for life to continue, and IMO has become a 'person'.

Is there a time during pregnancy when a woman's choice is no longer an issue? Why?

See above. With the exception of circumstances that would result in the death of the mother, then at viability, abortion should no longer be an option.


Third trimester abortions, called partial-birth abortions, should they be legally allowed across the board? Or only under special circumstances? Why?

Unless there are serious extenuating circumstances, then partial birth abortions shouldn't be performed. The child is viable, could be delivered and then put up for adoption. There is no excuse for killing the child 'just because'.

If a woman wants to have an abortion past the first tri-mester, should she be legally allowed to for any reason, or only special circumstances? Why?

Should an abortion come at the taxpayers expense, be subsidized, or otherwise financially underwritten by the government? Why?

Abortion should be covered under the same section of a health plan that covers all other 'female issues'. As long as abortion is legal, then places that would otherwise qualify for federal funding should receive it, regardless of whether they perform abortion services. It's a legal medical procedure, morality shouldn't come in to play in this instance.

Is there ever a substiatable conflict between a woman's right to choose and a fetus's right to be born? What would it be, and why?


Note: They were italicized for those who wish to answer it question by question rather than expound in their own way.

 

[Pokerman]

Re: Re: Abortion and social criterion...?

course the counter-argument could be raised now that I am pro-Choice and do not condem early abortions. I think that a woman has every right to terminate her pregnancy within a limited time frame. She should be old enough and mature enough to decide within the first couple of weeks, not within the first couple of months.

The problems are:

1) What do you call "the first couple of weeks"? 2? 3? 4? Most places in the US allow abortions through 26 weeks (the end of the second trimester).

2) Many tests are not done until 20 weeks into the pregnancy. When my wife was pregnant, one of her 20-week blood tests came back outside the normal range. There was a chance our child would be deformed or born with a debilitating disease. The tests that revealed this are typically not done (the so called "AFP" or "triple screen" tests) until the 20th week. She had to go for additional tests and an Amnio, which revealed that the baby was OK after all. The tests did not come back until the 24th or 25th week. If our child was going to have this disease, and we had chosen to terminate the pregnancy, we would have been pushing the 26-week limit to make our decision. Things like this can not be known until well past the 'first few weeks'.

 

[Andreina]

Re: Re: Re: Abortion and social criterion...?

The problems are:

1) What do you call "the first couple of weeks"? 2? 3? 4? Most places in the US allow abortions through 26 weeks (the end of the second trimester).

in most E.U. countries "normal" abortions are only allowed until the 12 week - which i think is a reasonable time to discover that you are pregnant and what you want to do.
I'm not sure what the situation is with children who would be born with servere disabilities but I am pretty sure that abortions after that date are legally allowed.