For me, it does not qualify as a "life" until it can live on its own without depending on the biological processes of the mother. We had this debate (12 pages worth) a few months back and I was told that my views on this might change as I see my baby growing and developing in my wife's womb. While I am thrilled to become a father and looking forward to everything that I have in store for me, my views on this have not changed. IMO, the mother has the right to make the choice of whether to use her body to develop that fetus into a life. I have no objection to educating the woman or presenting her with pictures of fetuses that are comparable to the one she has developing, but at the end of the day, the woman has a choice to make. The government has the responsibility to see that if she chooses abortion that the procedure is carried out in a licenced medical facility by a legitimate doctor.
and the reason we went round and round is the very same reason i'm about to respond. 1. up above i said, "even if it is a distinct life...do you still support a woman's right to abortion?" 2. you said yes 3. then later on your position is that it's not a distinct life. i didn't ask if you believe it to be a distinct life or not...it seems to me you have to do a ton mental gymnastics to even defend that position...but the question posed is that if ultimately become convinced, through the products of technology like the kind illustrated in the article made the subject of this thread, that the fetus is a separate life from its mother, then would you still support a woman's right to terminate that life? and if so, how in the world do you distinguish that from a mother's right to kill her 3 month old son who also depends on her for everything, and is arguably far more burdensome to the mother at that stage.
Yes, even if it is a distinct life, the woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to use HER body to bring that child to term. The difference between that and a three month old (or even a fetus that could survive outside the womb) is that someone ELSE could take care of the child if the woman decided not to keep it. At present, there is no way for someone else (or something else) to take over for a woman who doesn't want to take the fetus until term and until that is possible, I believe that the government has no right telling the woman what to do with her body. When the technology is available so that when she makes a choice not to take the child to term, the government can incubate the fetus until it is viable and then adopt it out to someone, abortion could be banned.
i knew you felt that way...that's why i said no need to answer. i don't understand your position in the slightest...but i knew that's how you felt.
For me, it is about the fact that, legal or not, abortions will be performed in this country. I believe that every single medical procedure, bar none, that is performed in this country is performed in a licensed facility by a legitimate medical practitioner. Once technology gives us a better solution than abortion, then and only then should we ban it.
i know...and for me, it's a non-starter to say we shouldn't outlaw an activity because people will do it anyway...if we did that we wouldn't have a criminal code at all.
Yeah, at first blush, our country's laws regarding life and death are pretty screwy: we have a death penalty, allow abortions, and ban euthanasia. I'm not defending or attacking any of these things. But to an outsider, it's probably hard to follow the thread of logic between the seemingly related issues.
My oldest did moon us. Back then, you generally could only get a snapshot of the ultrasound. My oldest's snapshot was of his butt to the camera, with his little winkie in between his cheeks.
So the fetus' muscles contracted, causing a smile. That doesn't make it a self-conscious entity. Tell ya what, outlaw the slaughter of all animals, then maybe I'd consider abortion to be wrong.
ok...so distinguish that from a newborn infant for me. if it is just muscles contracting...then it's "just gas" as they say when a newborn smiles. slaughter of animals?? come on...that's a non-starter. nice diversion but has zero to do with the topic at hand. if you believe there is more sanctity in the life of an animal than the life of a growing baby inside its mother's womb than there are just value differences that will make a conversation nearly impossible.
Max...you're ready for a fight. I won't go there I originally posted that it was ironic you heralded this new development given one of the 'benefits' was earlier detection of Downs syndrome. As someone pointed out, Downs is not curable, so earlier detection gives a person more time to decide whether they are ready to care for a Downs child. (interpretation -- whether or not to abort). Most people’s perceptions of 'when is it a life' strengthen as the baby develops. You'll find very few people who disagree a fetus is a baby just before birth. (unless they are coerced there in the heat of a debate -- hello Andymoon). On the flip side, more people are willing to accept the Day After Pills (RU84??) which ends a pregnancy a day or two after conception. Support for, or a person’s comfort with abortion decreases as the baby develops. Current screening often means a Downs baby is not detected until about the 20th week of a pregnancy. These are the 'late term abortions' you abhor. I'm really torn when reading the study you referenced. I agree that more information is good. Also, the more we know about a baby's development the better -- for a multitude of reasons quite separate from the abortion debate. Our neighbors have a child with Downs syndrome. She requires a lot more care than our child, but she's beautiful and I love her dearly. We would not have aborted our child even if he had been diagnosed with a disability. For that reason we saw no need for the prenatal test. I was somewhat discomforted that we were given that choice so late in the pregnancy. It seemed kind of 'perfect baby' shopping. Though I do support a woman's choice early in the pregnancy (at ease -- that debates been had ) I admit I had misgivings so late. I'm rambling on. I guess, while I'm fascinated by the technology improvements, I'm somewhat disheartened by what it may mean. Will earlier detection of potential disabilities mean only 'perfect babies' are born? I do a fair bit of work with people with disabilities and it saddens me that, had today's technology been available years ago, many of these people may not have been born. Things to think about.