|
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote:Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
It may have the shape of a baby and it may be alive but it's still not self-conscious. The elaborate connections required for consciousness begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. The state of consciousness is achieved 2 months later I believe, I might be wrong on that part.
So before that and even though it looks like a baby, the fetus does not know that he exists and therefore many people don't see a problem in killing it.
|
On April 28 2011 11:43 eshlow wrote:Stages of fetal development by weeks: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htmFWIW, fetuses can live outside the womb at approximately 22-25 weeks. Althoguh generally they will have some degree of mental difficulties. 28+ is more normal since there is huge amount of neurological development around the 24-32 week period. I find it pretty funny that women are allowed to kill off a fetus but people aren't allowed to kill cats and dogs or other pets lest you get put in jail and railed on by PETA for example. (again, both are living, can feel pain, have heartbeats, but don't have "conscious" thought or rather self aware). Shrug.
See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
|
In my opinion, women shouldn't be able to have an abortion in third trimester unless there is a health concern such as a life-threatening problem with the mother. As far as fetuses being alive, of course they are. However, do they really have a mind? Your mind is who you are, and if something doesn't have one, it really isn't a human being IMO. An example would be Terry Schivo, she was braindead, she no longer had a mind and was just an empty husk.
|
On April 28 2011 12:32 Tarbosh wrote:
I'm all for abortions, but that is late enough in the pregnancy that I don't think it is really a factor. I think (hope) any woman would have decided by then whether or not they want to keep the baby and could abort sooner. I wouldn't mind seeing this law passed in other states because it really would affect a small percentage of (potential) abortions. Also, warning them about side effects doesn't really matter, if a woman is having a baby unplanned there are no side effects that aren't worth it unless they have the procedure done unprofessionally.
Don't you think that women should be allowed to decide for themselves, though? A lot of people in this thread are saying that anyone should've decided by 20 weeks, but I severely doubt that any of the people saying that have been through any kind of pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, healthy or dangerous. I think it's presumptuous and judgmental to speak for the people who are actually involved.
|
Abortion at any stage is morally wrong, that much should be obvious to practically anyone. That doesn't mean that a ban solves any problems. The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
Just like with prohibition of alcohol and narcotics, we know that prohibition does not reduce demand, and that people will just resort to illegal and unsafe sources.
|
On April 28 2011 12:28 hongo wrote:I don't think most people are just saying abortion is wrong because they wouldn't get one, but because they believe that the fetus is a precious, living thing, that deserves to live. So in essence, they believe that the mother is forcing her belief that the fetus should not live onto the fetus, who they believe doesn't want to die. To weigh in, I think that a fetus is going to develop into a human, so deserves to be given the same rights as a human.
I do somewhat agree here, and I would agree that having an abortion is not something that should be just freely available to anyone to fix a mistake "whoops forgot a condom lol"
But have none of you ever questioned how intertwined anti-abortion beliefs (which are totally reasonable and defensible) are with other, less reasonable beliefs (anti contraception, pro-abstinence, both of which are retarded beliefs).
Its a huge fucking mess and all caused by people trying to force beliefs onto others. Unintended pregnancies wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if there wasn't such constant pressure from religious lobbies trying to prevent thorough sexual education and freely available contraception to all sexually mature people (note I say sexually mature and not necessarily adults. Teenagers are going to have sex as much as they want regardless of laws and beliefs, so it may as well be our priority to at least make sure its as safe as possible when they do.)
|
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill.
I agree with this. I find it very odd that with all of today's struggles for getting "rights" for different groups of people (different races, LGBT, etc.), no one really considers the rights of the people who can't defend themselves. Many pro-abortionists argue that it is a matter of women's rights, but what about the rights of the unborn child? Aren't our natural rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I'm not sure why this doesn't apply to unborn babies. Perhaps it's because they can't self-advocate. And sure, I'm all for women's rights, but I believe that if you decide to have sex, you should be aware of the possible consequences and be ready to accept them.
On another note, even when a birth is life-threatening for the mother, I still think abortion is pretty unacceptable. This is another instance where pro-abortionists cry "women's rights", but when did their rights become more important than their children's rights?
In fact, one could say that the children's right to life is more important, because they have more unlived life to experience. I'm not saying that's part of my argument, as it's a little "out there," but it's just something to think about.
|
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote:
Abortion at any stage is morally wrong, that much should be obvious to practically anyone. That doesn't mean that a ban solves any problems. The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
Just like with prohibition of alcohol and narcotics, we know that prohibition does not reduce demand, and that people will just resort to illegal and unsafe sources.
I pretty much agree with this guy. The one thing that angers me about abortion laws\discussions is the way some pro-choice people try equating fetuses to cancer or useless genetic material or something. Can't exactly pinpoint it, but it bothers the crap out of me. Some respect for your previous stage of development, people.
|
On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote:
Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
|
I'm usually 100% pro abortion. But 20 weeks (5 months) is alot of time. I don't think I would disagree with a law like that. Seems like a nice middle ground I would agree with.
I mean, the whole point of me being pro abortion is that it's the women who should decide what to do with her own womb. But if she still didn't make up her mind after 5 months then maybe she's not really the best judge 
See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
I agree with that. It's hypocritical that most anti-abortionists eat meat.
|
On April 28 2011 12:42 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. I agree with this. I find it very odd that with all of today's struggles for getting "rights" for different groups of people (different races, LGBT, etc.), no one really considers the rights of the people who can't defend themselves. Many pro-abortionists argue that it is a matter of women's rights, but what about the rights of the unborn child? Aren't our natural rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I'm not sure why this doesn't apply to unborn babies. Perhaps it's because they can't self-advocate. And sure, I'm all for women's rights, but I believe that if you decide to have sex, you should be aware of the possible consequences and be ready to accept them. On another note, even when a birth is life-threatening for the mother, I still think abortion is pretty unacceptable. This is another instance where pro-abortionists cry "women's rights", but when did their rights become more important than their children's rights? In fact, one could say that the children's right to life is more important, because they have more unlived life to experience. I'm not saying that's part of my argument, as it's a little "out there," but it's just something to think about.
A woman can always have another child. Is a fetus the offspring of humans? Of course, but is a fetus truly a human being? I doubt many people would consider a gastrula a human being, and I certainly wouldn't consider the first stages of development as being a human being.
Those rights apply to human beings, people with a mind. Where we draw the line is a grey area, but I definitely value the life of a mother over her offspring in early development.
|
United States22883 Posts
A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition.
Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]
The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[6]
That's what the 20 is based off of.
The bill is just updating the criteria set forth in Roe vs. Wade, which is why Blackmun's opinion was so monumentally poor. As it stands, there's nothing wrong with the bill. Eventually, the issue will have to be re-evaluated by the Supreme Court and there's no way Roe v. Wade will stand.
It'll probably just have to become a state issue. "Viability" outside the womb increases with technology and I don't think it's a proper justification for abortion.
The Planned Parenthood thing is troubling to some, but the state is in trouble and since they can't run a deficit, cutting it is a lot easier than cutting other programs.
|
On April 28 2011 12:43 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote:
Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner. Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
Well don't post with vague medical reasoning if you don't know what youre talking about, and you don't give a damn about the subject lol. It's not unrelated, it's a parallel line of understanding that you won't acknowledge.
|
On April 28 2011 12:38 funnybananaman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:43 eshlow wrote:Stages of fetal development by weeks: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htmFWIW, fetuses can live outside the womb at approximately 22-25 weeks. Althoguh generally they will have some degree of mental difficulties. 28+ is more normal since there is huge amount of neurological development around the 24-32 week period. I find it pretty funny that women are allowed to kill off a fetus but people aren't allowed to kill cats and dogs or other pets lest you get put in jail and railed on by PETA for example. (again, both are living, can feel pain, have heartbeats, but don't have "conscious" thought or rather self aware). Shrug. See i find it ridiculous that people will allow killing innocent, living breathing pain feeling conscious animals for the purpose of eating their meat but are at the same time completely against killing a fetus thats nothing more than a bunch of cells with less genetic structure than a banana, just because of the fact that its technically "human".
[insert eye roll here]
Again, the fetus we're talking about ITT past 20 weeks has a consciousness, heartbeat, etc. which is what I stated in the above post because i was making an analogy.
Your "analogy" if you can even call it that is a strawman & red herring at best.
Also, if you think a fetus has less genetic structure than a banana (if that's even true which it may very well be) you also have less genetic structure than a banana and so do I.
|
On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote:
Abortion at any stage is morally wrong
The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
+ Show Spoiler +
I believe that more education would normalize abortions and put an end to this irrational debate, as people will realize that lol a fetus has more in common with a sperm or the tree in my backyard than me.
|
On April 28 2011 12:50 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:43 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote:
Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner. Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_- Well don't post with vague medical reasoning if you don't know what youre talking about, and you don't give a damn about the subject lol. It's not unrelated, it's a parallel line of understanding that you won't acknowledge.
I won't acknowledge it because it's irrelevant, there's a difference between someone being alive for 50 years and going into a coma and a fetus that's never seen the light of day. Someone in a coma WAS a fully functioning human being who lived a life and will probably have loved ones/dependants/friends etc., a fetus never did.
Abortion is nothing more than late contraception.
|
On April 28 2011 12:45 VIB wrote:
I agree with that. It's hypocritical that most anti-abortionists eat meat.
Uhhhhh? *Scratches head.* I don't follow this logic.
There's a difference between killing an animal for sustenance, and killing an animal, much less a human being because you decide, for whatever reason, that you just plain don't want it.
|
I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 28 2011 12:43 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:31 maliceee wrote:
Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner. Probably because I'm not a doctor/abortion expert/activist and generally don't give much of a damn about the subject. I was simply pointing out that a fetus is incapable of feeling anything and you guys come along with a bunch of unrelated stuff about people sleeping/being in comas -_-
It's actually incorrect that a fetus can't feel anything, they can't feel anything until around the second trimester. After that point, although they aren't really self-aware, they are capable of feeling pain and other physical stimulation.
On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote:
I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is.
|
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote:
Abortion at any stage is morally wrong
The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ?
Because we don't care if it is self aware. Your goalpost, not ours.
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:
A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm.
Spermies aren't really like somewhat developed fetuses, no. I'm guessing you are using the self aware goalpost again, with everything not self aware needed no consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img862.imageshack.us/i/1300245458476.png/)
