abortion question

This doesn't change my view that abortion should be a legal option for women.

The fetus in the story was 23 weeks old when operated on. This is WELL past the time of most abortions. This according to the Centers for Disease Control:

"The CDC estimates that 55 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20
weeks (CDC, 2000)."

So, while miraculous, this procedure isn't really relevent to the pro/anti abortion debate.

 

First, I think that's a cool article. Cutting-edge medical science at work saving a baby's life.

Second, I don't see how it relates to abortion. The baby was delivered six weeks early - well into the third trimester and hardly a record for a successful premature birth. I know very few pro-choice people who would advocate an abortion of a baby 7 1/2 months into the pregnancy...

 

What's the point? And I think it's a little silly to post an article on this and not expect an argument, if you view said article as pro-life "evidence." The attempt at persuasion is implicit.

 

I *think* the general rule is that unless having the baby poses a significant health risk to the mother, it's very difficult to get a legal abortion after the twelfth week of pregnancy. So this article is basically irrelevant to the pro-choice/anti-choice issue.

 

Hypothetical question:

If science ever got to the point where the baby could be delivered and survive within two weeks of gestication by using techniques similar to those in cloning, would that change things?

 

I think we all know our positions on abortion, Now I could Say something Ashcroft-esque but It wouldn't change anyone's mind.

 

How can a crook with a handgun murder a child by shooting it dead while it's still in its mother's womb yet an abortionist who plucks that same creature out of it's life-sustaining environment is not a criminal.

I'll start the damn argument! Children's lives depend on it.

 

The point is, in this society it's only a person's point of view that determines the social status of an unborn baby. An "unwanted fetus" and an "unborn child" are biologically the same thing; it just depends on who's talking about them and how badly they want the baby. Usually fetuses of viable age are not aborted; however, it is technically legal as I understand. In my opinion, it's a case of people deciding what is right depending on what is convenient for them. A kind of scary example of relativism in America today.

The weird thing about abortion arguments is that, like someone said earlier, it's impossible to change anyone's mind. I don't know too many fence-sitters on this issue. Although I feel strongly about it, I don't get into the arguments too much because they don't go anywhere. Since the abortion situation seems to be a test of what someone's moral "absolutes" are, and is a life or death issue (if you're pro-life), I try to give it more weight that most issues when deciding who I'm going to vote for. Other issues (like how best to fix the public schools, how much should be taken care of by our government, how to stop the terrorists, etc.) are usually a matter of "we all want the same thing, but what is the best way to make it happen."

I personally don't understand how anyone can justify being pro-choice if they have a lot of absolute moral standards on other issues. However, a lot of people are, including many of my friends. Anyway, not meaning to open a can of worms here... it's interesting how this issue brings up so many strong emotions, even among those who don't feel that a fetus is a separate human being.

 

Tell you what Joe Joe, when they can do that, send me an e-mail and we'll talk. Until then it's a moot point.

 

Because apparently, the law says that a mother can determine whether she is carrying a child, or a mass of tissue . . .

But I don't want to get into this debate, so this is the last I'll post in here.

 

I really hate this logic. That's like saying the death penalty is ok as long as only 75 criminals die for every 1 innocent person killed. How do you feel about partial birth abortion?

 

So, according to the race thread and this one, we don't want abortion but we also don't want to support the children once they are born either?

 

I use to be 100% pro-choice when I was younger.

It's amazing what age and acouple of kids will do.

 

By the way, haven't we debated this enough? If everyone wants to continue to debate, that's fine I guess, but it just seems like we've spent countless posts and hours arguing with really no conclusion other than just to piss us off.

 

I'll be waiting. I believe its only a matter of time whether its our lifetime or in a 1000 years.

 

Not true. I've changed my stance on it 180 degrees since I got out of that great "liberating" factory-- the university.

Others on this thread have indicated the same kind of change of heart. That's what it is really.... a change of heart not of mind.

Left to nature, that creature/fetus/blob/baby will become a human being. It has a right to life.

Enough said. Anything else is self-serving.

 

I have totally changed my mind on this subject. I used to be one of those "it's a woman's body, it's her choice" because I felt/feel strongly about gender equality. But by others challenging me and not letting me give some cop-out BS answer, I was forced to question my views on a lot of things. My experience was a change of mind when I realized the problems of not logically evaluating my position.

 

As long as a baby is dependent on the mother to survive and that delivering it poses health risks and causes discomfort to the mother it should be a women's decision to keep or abort. Just like it is your decision to give a dying person one of your needed kidneys or not. When science is at the stage it can take the fetus out of the woman and carry it to term somewhere else then I might view things differently.