Do doctors know for CERTAIN that the mother would die? I doubt it. Possible? Yeah. Absolute? No. Here's what I don't understand concerning abortion mentality: The baby is the MOTHER'S and FATHER'S CHILD. Born or not, it is their child. Why decide to terminate a pregnancy so late in the growth of the baby? They'd likely love it to death if they spent some time with it, but they have no love for something they haven't yet associated with. My opinion on abortion is that it should not be. I just cannot fathom it. It's an "easy" way out for irresponsible people. To me, people that carelessly sleep around, with anything that moves, without caring for the outcomes of their actions, are irresponsible, and who gets the shaft? The baby. A baby needs a man and a woman, a Father and a Mother. Making baby's outside this structure is irresponsible. Today's society thinks nothing of it though... There's also the point that was brought up to me a while back.. What if a woman is raped? The child is not concieved in love, and surely was not intended to be a family addition, so should abortion be a viable alternative here? Things to ponder...
Not to bring this thread back with too much veracity, but I was talking to my girlfriend last night, who was a theology major at a strict catholic school, and she said that giving the mother treatment for chemo would be with the intent to help the mother, not to injure or end the child's life, once again holding up intention over abortion....
The thing that puzzles me is that people see a difference between 1) killing the baby in the womb 2) partially delivering the baby then killing it 3) delivering the baby then killing it In all cases it's the same baby at the same stage of development, he just happens to be in a different location
sigh. I understand the question, but this has been covered quite a bit. Options available for starting "human life" 1. Fertilization is attempted. 2. Sperm touches egg. 3. Sperm fuses with egg. 4. Foetus has brain waves. 5. Foetus registers to vote republican (j/k). 6. Foetus exits mother. 7. Human achieves social self consciousness and analytical skills. So everyone thinks they know the right one. Aristotle liked #7 and actually advocating killing kids before, say, age 4 or 6, if the parents felt like it. You may think 1 sounds ridiculous, but it doesn't strike me as any more ridiculous than 2, which is no more ridiculous than 3. In each case, you are a *long* way from anything we could consider a person, and odds are strong that the foetus will not form. Personally, I like #4. Society, for a great while, has more or less favored #6 because it is a very clear dividing line of separation. I still find it painfully sad commentary that all us men get our panties in a wad over this topic and no women feel comfortable posting in these abortion threads.
B-Bob -- there's only like 2 women who post on this board, period. brain waves makes some logical sense to me...though, i'm more persuaded that the orignal fertilized egg...that cell has all the DNA that makes that person unique...i'm not comfortable with playing loose and fast with what MIGHT be human life. but at least your approach makes some sense...at least it's cognizant of the risk that we just might be killing human beings on a pretty large scale. brain waves happen during month 2, by the way...i think that makes some logical sense that is consistent with other law about calculating specifically the time of death, i.e. when brain waves cease.
do you discount the possiblity a child could feel some sense of social self-consciousness in its mother's womb?? and explain to me what you mean when you say, "odds are strong that the foetus will not form." i'm not sure what you're getting at there...
B-Bob, where do you think life starts then... That is where the person begins for me... but you probably already knew that, hell we are from different planets...
So, just for the sake of argument, who would be happy with the following type of "law" (pardon my bad legalese, MM) ? 1. Human life starts at the detection of brain waves, and on average that starts at ** days (fill in with scientific fact). After this point, the foetus is considered a human. The foetus may be terminated legally before the ** day deadline. 2. After ** days, however, the foetus may be legally terminated only if substantial risk to the life of the mother can be demonstrated by independent medical professionals. (For the record, I'm not saying I would support this. But it leaves women some control over their bodies, especially with the morning after pill or a quick decision. And it seems to save a lot of foetuses that people consider fully human.)
I am with Aristotle, earthling! j/k. I said I liked #4, but I support a woman's right to choose. See my proposed "law" for the sake of discussion.
i think that beats the hell out of what we have...just a more stringent definition of the word, "health" would be a good thing, in my view. and can't we measure a baby's brain waves so we don't have to be so arbitrary? can't that be a condition precedent?? that way we're not killing a child with brain waves who developed quicker than the average baby.
Well for me, It's number one, because the act of creating is the starting point that we all must go by... I think its silly not to start at the begging, its like reading Aristotle w/out reading Plato or Parmenides or Thrasas.
Well, I'm afraid of this precedent, and with good reason. Look around you on the BBS -- think of the possibilities if brainwaves are needed to justify continuing existence. Oh, the humanity!
