Abortion

It is unfair to make a blanket statement that the "sperm donor" has no say. How about a HUSBAND!!!!!!!

Abortions should ONLY be for the physical health of the mother.

That is my opinion, which I have a right to have, and no one will change my mind.

 

Oops, double post (stupid 'puter)

 

It is unfair to make a blanket statement that the "sperm donor" has no say. How about a HUSBAND!!!!!!!

Abortions should ONLY be for the physical health of the mother.

That is my opinion, which I have a right to have, and no one will change my mind.

Abortion is a persoanl decision but how illogical it is to say that there is not a basis for a legitimate right for society to pass laws to regulate it. Abortion is not an "inherent" right.

 

So, should the point at which the fetus becomes "viable" be the dividing point? What is the standard for "viable"? Should we put the limit at "viable" or at the point where the fetus becomes conscious? How can you legislate that if fetuses develop at different rates?

Clearly, a ball of stem cells is not a human, but I think almost everyone would agree that aborting a pregnancy at 8.5 months is not OK. So, where is the dividing line? When does it change from being a choice of the mother about her own body to being about the child? I'm very much pro choice, but these questions have always bothered me.

 

Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion, they don't have the right to make it the law. Like it or not, husband, boyfriend or not--you can't force a woman to have a child or an abortion whatever your opinion.

Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion but in this matter, who cares what you think. It has no revelance to my choice. Abortion is a personal matter not a public opinion.

When you become pregnant, then you get to make the choice.

 

This level of absolutism is the only thing that makes me uneasy about my (very strong) pro choice opinion. You say that "Abortion is a personal matter not a public opinion." I agree, but only up to a point. I think that everyone would agree that killing a child (no matter how young) is wrong (to put it mildly). So, what's the difference between a newborn and a just-about-to-be-born? Clearly, at some point, it stops being about the mother and starts being about another life (the child). What point is that? What/Who determines that?

 

As the Doc's have mentioned, viability of of the fetus can be determined as early as 24 weeks but that child will have a poor quality of life with multiple medical conditions and disability. It reminds me of Nurse's training at Albany Medical Center. I got to watch an iintern beat the crap (extensive CPR) out of this 90+/- old man who had cancer because no one had gotten a DNR on him. We need to respect life for its' fullness and not just its' existence

You will definitely have the women who, if only through denial or lack of education, may not know they are pregnant until it is too late for an abortion. They should recieve intense counseling at that time to help them make an informed decision about keeping the child or giving it up for adoption.

And as long as it is the woman carrying that child and giving birth to it then it is her right to make these decisions.

I will post this just once. I think that it can stand on its own merit.

 

How does it effect you what another woman's choice to have a child or not? Where is public opinion and legislation on the men that impregnant multiple woman. Should we limit how many sexual partner and children a man can have? If we legislated that all men must use birth control to prevent these pregnancies, wouldn't that reduce abortion?

I don't consider my opinion absolutism--but rather, non-interference. I trust in a women's ability to do what is best for herself, though it may not be my choice. How many women do you really believe abort after 6 months---more importantly how does it concern you?

 

Too many young men today are raised believing that it is cool to have more than a few kids but they take no responsibility for any of them. We had this fairly smart guy working at one of our group homes. He has 3 kids within a couple months of each other with 3 different women.

Obviously the women have a fairly low self esteem to put up with his behavior and he has an overinflated self esteem because he does not think that he should deal with birth control.

 

OK. Maybe it doesn't directly concern me. However, neither do a lot of other things that society judges to be "not OK." If a parent abuses his/her child, it doesn't directly affect me, but society still says that it's wrong and we should intervene to stop that. And, certainly, almost every society judges murder to be wrong. And this is what a lot of the "pro-life" people say: that we are killing a human, so it shouldn't be the mother's decision. I certainly don't buy this argument early on, but there must be some point where this becomes true; after all, a pregnancy does develop into a child at some point.

I agree; almost no one is going to have an abortion after 6 months. However, why did you say "6 months"? What makes that time special?

 

Six months equates to 24 weeks, the point at which viability is reached.

 

First, let me respond to henry by saying that if you're talking about government not legislating SEXUAL morality, you're right: it's useless. But otherwise, government legislates "morality" in one form or another, often indirectly, all the time. The tax code, for example, has all kinds of "moral judgements" in it. But that may stretch beyond your "moral" concept.

I'm a liberal who, after 45 years as an all-out, no-holds-barred "pro-choice" advocate, is having serious second thoughts, and have had for the last five years or so.

My doubts have nothing to do with religion, nor is it in response to the so-called "pro-life" positions/presentations. It has developed more in connection with my own study of genetics, in turn first stimulated by revisiting "evolution". I think all the recent and current findings in the human genome project have pointed out that that "blob of cells" (first few weeks) is more of a "person", in most ways EXCEPT "final-form" appearance, than I ever knew when I was younger.

 

You say this as if it is an absolute fact. Is it? What is meant by "viability"? How different is this timescale from pregnancy to pregnancy? What is special about this time? I mean, isn't development a continuum, so it's hard to point to a specific time when it's not OK to have an abortion?

 

I mentioned six months because this seems to be around the point a fetus can survive outside the womb and causes people like yourself to change their mind about choice. Political propaganda would have us believe this is the norm but it is not.

I disagree that child abuse doesn't effect you. In certain professions, you must report this or risk losing your licensce. . .An abusive parents or family has profound effects on the quality of life in your community---the abused child may be a bully in the neighborhood or at school. Surely they lack appropriate socialization. Survey prisons and see how many children were severely, not even moderately,abused. Child abuse has huge social harmful effects.

What are the social problems created by abortion? The only one I think of is the rise of the religious right.

 

You're right, it's actually consider viable at 23 weeks 5 days...but some guys at Harvard think they can move it to 23 weeks and 1 day.

As for viability, it means it can survive outside the uterus with medical assistance. Before that point, the baby will almost surely die.

Quality of life of a baby born at 23 5/7 is another topic altogether, basically, it would suck.

As for the issue of abortion, I was just answering a question as to why someone mentioned 6 months.

 

In one study, the mortality rate of 23 to 24 weekers was 98%. For 24 to 25 weekers it was 68%. I would guess the survivers in the 23 to 24 group were closer to 24 than 23 weeks.