EPTIndiana bans abortion past 20th week - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
| ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
Personally, I consider abortion to be an overall public good, since less unwanted (male) children = less crime. However, less unwanted female children = a generation of bachelors = more crime (see china, india). Therefore, the utility maximising position is unrestricted abortion of male children, and restricted abortion of female children, with the harsh penalties for the latter, with whatever financial/propaganda incentives needed to maintain a birth rate at or above replacement. By the way, I consider the right to life to begin when it takes its first, unaided breath. | ||
|
candh
Canada8 Posts
Obligatory warning: Chances are you will be banned for arguing for/against the abortion. This thread is talking specifically about the law and the potential for other states to adopt the same law (or a similar one). Discussion about planned parenthood is also ok and encouraged. When writing about the law, you are inevitably implicity arguing about the subject of abortion. Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S And what happens to the baby too. In terms of talking about the law specifically, I don't see what the big deal is. 20 weeks after is pretty much 4 months into the pregnancy. Few abortions happen at this time and those that do usually have disastrous consequences. This seems like a sensible legislation that draws a fine line between the "gray area" that people refer to when they talk about reproductive rights. | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
And on the separate subject of abortion in general: The notion of a fetus (read: parasite) having some sort of rights is fairly ludicrous. Besides the fact that rights and morals are not objective, and are societal concepts, a fetus does not have rights in the sense that living humans do because it is not its own separate entity. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On April 28 2011 12:38 funnybananaman wrote: 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". Oh god... why do these discussions always have to have "the animal rights" activist in it trying to derail and draw parallels to their own cause. | ||
LosingID8
CA10829 Posts
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote: 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 + ![[image loading]](http://img862.imageshack.us/i/1300245458476.png/) 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. ok come on, if you have any knowledge of basic biology you should not be equating sperm to a fetus. your argument is intellectually dishonest. sperm are HAPLOID, a fetus is DIPLOID. humans are diploid organisms. fetuses also have unique DNA that is a combination of both the mother and father. these are two main reasons why many pro-lifers view conception as the starting point of life. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On April 28 2011 13:58 LosingID8 wrote: ok come on, if you have any knowledge of basic biology you should not be equating sperm to a fetus. your argument is intellectually dishonest. sperm are HAPLOID, a fetus is DIPLOID. humans are diploid organisms. fetuses also have unique DNA that is a combination of both the mother and father. these are two main reasons why many pro-lifers view conception as the starting point of life. I disagree with this. I knew a girl in high school that was pregnant and took a paternity test because she wasn't sure who the father was. It turned out the father was an oak tree. | ||
|
wxwx
527 Posts
On April 28 2011 12:34 TuElite wrote: 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. Yeah, that's exactly why this proposed law is sensible imo. Difference between 20 and 24 is not much, can be seen as a buffer. If I were to make the law I would prefer it to be earlier, because the mere shape taking form makes me shudder. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On April 28 2011 13:33 Romantic wrote: Because we don't care if it is self aware. Your goalpost, not ours. 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. You're making an excellent point here, Romantic. I'd be really surprised if it gains any traction though. As I think you're aware, the abortion debate always revolves around a definition of personhood, but most participants in said debate like to conceive of their own definition as the only "rational" one, as if an issue as multifaceted and as ideologically situated as the concept personhood is something about which two reasonable human beings couldn't disagree. And frankly it's difficult to call which pole in this debate has less of a claim to "rationality." We have seen an unborn child analogized to a cancer tumor, a banana, a sperm, and a parasite. Call me a cynic, but I don't think such fanciful metaphors are actually helping us establish a mutually comprehensible starting point for the discussion. They recall, for me at least, one of my favorite diatribes on the subject: A View of Abortion, With Something to Offend Everyone | ||
|
wxwx
527 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:44 Krehlmar wrote: Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA  Definition of individual : 1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain. That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken. Guys please don't make these comparisons. Does a cow, pig, cancer tumor have a potential future as a human being? Someone even compared it to bathroom mold. Remember that you were once inside your mother's womb. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
I am pro-choice, however I am quite surprised and kind of disgusted that previously there haven't been any regulations for late abortions (at least that's what I understand from the article). Actually, I'd say that 20 weeks is already pretty late for an abortion as the fetus is already devoleped quite far (btw premature babies can survive from about week 24 on). Here I'd like to list some examples for abortion legislature in Europe: In Germany, Switzerland and Austria abortions are basically allowed until the 12th week. Only under special circumstances is it allowed to have an abortion any later. And I believe this is quite sensible, since up to week 12 the embryo can be viewed simply as "clump of cells". There are no organs and the neural system is basically non-existent. I'd say 12 weeks are more than enough time for a woman to decide if she wants to have a child or not. Even in the Netherlands, which are known for having a very liberal legislature on abortions, these are allowed only until the 22nd week. Summing up, I don't see any reason why an abortion should be performed as late as the 20th week (or the 12th for that matter). From my point of view the 20 week period set in the Indiana bill is actually set too far in the pregnancy. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19300 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:07 Dalguno wrote: Is 20 weeks just an arbitrary amount of time, or is there reason for it? off subject + Show Spoiler + What's that pumpkin for by your name, OP? I wanna know about the pumpkin too! lol. ^ see spoiler Anyway, 20weeks is plenty of time to know whether you want to abort or not. Even it is arbitrary I don't think its a big deal. And honestly, I'd like to know how doctors can tell how many weeks it has been exactly. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On April 28 2011 14:03 HULKAMANIA wrote: You're making an excellent point here, Romantic. I'd be really surprised if it gains any traction though. As I think you're aware, the abortion debate always revolves around a definition of personhood, but most participants in said debate like to conceive of their own definition as the only "rational" one, as if an issue as multifaceted and as ideologically situated as the concept personhood is something about which two reasonable human beings couldn't disagree. And frankly it's difficult to call which pole in this debate has less of a claim to "rationality." We have seen an unborn child analogized to a cancer tumor, a banana, a sperm, and a parasite. Call me a cynic, but I don't think such fanciful metaphors are actually helping us establish a mutually comprehensible starting point for the discussion. They recall, for me at least, one of my favorite diatribes on the subject: A View of Abortion, With Something to Offend Everyone I can't log in because I don't have a NY times account. I'm sure I could piss off both sides, though. I think old fully developed people deserve more consideration than ones who aren't, for one. That is likely to make "pro-life" people mad. I've got a million beefs with the "pro choice" camp. What really gets me is the language and analogies people use. Fetuses aren't cancer, parasites, or goldfish. Things like reproductive rights, childrens rights, womens' rights, and privacy rights are just terms involving some madeup rights that muddle things even further and are usually based on a complete inability to understand or compensate for what the other person is saying and aren't defined. People try to generalize their views into a principle that they then selectively apply while making up make up rights. It all ends up being pretty nonsensical and partisan with nobody really conceding anything. I realize this happens on every issue, but with abortion it is just more pronounced. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Trajan98
Canada203 Posts
and that is something the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life. I don't think that abortion should be illegal though because there are circumstances where it may be needed. This law seems very reasonable because if you are having an abortion at or after 20 weeks which is almost 5 months and roughly half of a pregnancy.The baby is very well developed at this point and can even hear the mothers heart beat and voice. Taking the life at this point is murder in my eyes and as it seems the lawmakers as well. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
Figuratively, I think a computer user should be able to still fully cancel the installation of an unwanted program after 20 seconds/minutes/hours (aka any amount of time) before the program is fully installed. | ||
|
maliceee
United States634 Posts
On April 28 2011 13:11 jello_biafra wrote: 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. You are very set into your beliefs, even if you have no knowledge on the subject. There is no point in debating you. You already said you don't give a damn about it, so I guess it doesn't matter. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On April 28 2011 14:30 Trajan98 wrote: Abortion at anytime in a pregnancy isn't morally right, because your taking the life of an unborn child and that is something the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life. I don't think that abortion should be illegal though because there are circumstances where it may be needed. How can you take what it has never experienced? It can be argued that it's morally wrong to HAVE a child in the first place, the child has no choice in the matter, it may be born with some terrible affliction rendering life not too pleasant, it may simply not want to live etc. On April 28 2011 14:36 maliceee wrote: You are very set into your beliefs, even if you have no knowledge on the subject. There is no point in debating you. You already said you don't give a damn about it, so I guess it doesn't matter. Very well, we'll agree to disagree. I still fail to see the relevance of a dude in a coma though. In response to your earlier question about a suitable cut off point, the UK's 24 week limit seems like a reasonable enough one. | ||
|
LarJarsE
United States1378 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S what the fuck is up with our government trying to regulate such personal business? fuck them | ||
|
Wasteland
United States22 Posts
On April 28 2011 13:50 Ownos wrote: Oh god... why do these discussions always have to have "the animal rights" activist in it trying to derail and draw parallels to their own cause. This is a common argument for both pro-choice and animal rights. Peter Singer made the two synonymous with each other when discussing the morality of both of these subjects. Whether or not that is the right approach to the argument is subjective (obviously), but, after reading Animal Liberation, and Writings on an Ethical Life, one could certainly draw these conclusions logically. For a point of reference, Peter Singer has suggested the idea of abortions up to one month after the birth of the child is morally acceptable, arguing that the brain capacity of that child is that of a feed animal at that point thus allowing for moral equality in their death. Forgive me if this is a supreme oversimplification, but I haven't been involved in the subject for quite a bit of time. | ||
| ||
