Abortions And Miscarriages

[Asimov]

I'd have to say that I think most people actually do what you're saying but say that life is "scared" to them. Of course life has its personal value added, like pretty much everything else.

 

I have to add, I agree, a woman's choice is a woman's choice no matter how "human" the fetus may seem. I don't think anyone in this forum would like it very much if someone said, "you can't masturbate because you're aborting potential life" or "you can't menstrate because you're aborting potential life." Just think about if a sperm looked all cute and could actually talk. Millions of lives are being loss in one stroke of a cock.

 

Sperm are a live. Are they scraed too? Should we outlaw the disposal of sperm and eggs? After all they are alive, they could possibly feel, and they are human.

 

 

Well, let's look at it this way too...

 

Let's say that you wake up one morning to find that another human being is hooked up to you. You find out that he's a famous violinist and he has a kidney infection that renders his kidneys useless. You are the only person who is compatible with him and so the Association of Violinists decided to keep their favourite man alive by hooking him up to you without your permission in the middle of the night.

 

Unfortunately, the machinery is big and bulky and you have to stay in bed for 9 months in order to get this guy healed, at no cost to yourself (aside from the time). If you don't do it, he'll die.

 

Your options are:

 

1) Stay in bed for 9 months.

2) Unhook him and let him die.

 

Do you have any moral obligation to keep this Violinist alive?

 

I would say no. Some people might choose to let the Violinist stay alive, especially because it's only 9 months and it doesn't harm you in any way.

 

What if it was 2 years? 3 years? 10 years??

 

Do you think you have any obligation to keep this famous Violinist alive?

[AtheistMommy]

 

Well, let's look at it this way too...

 

Let's say that you wake up one morning to find that another human being is hooked up to you. You find out that he's a famous violinist and he has a kidney infection that renders his kidneys useless. You are the only person who is compatible with him and so the Association of Violinists decided to keep their favourite man alive by hooking him up to you without your permission in the middle of the night.

 

Unfortunately, the machinery is big and bulky and you have to stay in bed for 9 months in order to get this guy healed, at no cost to yourself (aside from the time). If you don't do it, he'll die.

 

Your options are:

 

1) Stay in bed for 9 months.

2) Unhook him and let him die.

 

Do you have any moral obligation to keep this Violinist alive?

 

I would say no. Some people might choose to let the Violinist stay alive, especially because it's only 9 months and it doesn't harm you in any way.

 

What if it was 2 years? 3 years? 10 years??

 

Do you think you have any obligation to keep this famous Violinist alive?

Wait, wouldn't having someone hooked up to you like this be taking away from your own good health? You'd be sharing their toxins. Wouldn't you?

 

I'd be pissed off as hell. I'd unhook him. But of course he holds no emotional value for me and so the most I'd feel is sorry for him.

[Asimov]

Wait, wouldn't having someone hooked up to you like this be taking away from your own good health? You'd be sharing their toxins. Wouldn't you?

 

For the purpose of this hypothetical situation, you are not going to be negatively affected except being bed ridden for 9 months.

 

I'd be pissed off as hell. I'd unhook him. But of course he holds no emotional value for me and so the most I'd feel is sorry for him.

 

Well yea, but you wouldn't say that his right to live trumps your right to choose whether or not you should take care of this guy until he gets well?

[NobleSavage]

Sperm are a live. Are they scraed too? Should we outlaw the disposal of sperm and eggs? After all they are alive, they could possibly feel, and they are human.

As I've said before on this thread, the issue is not the biological definition of life but whether or not the being is a self-aware, thinking, feeling being. Sperm and overies don't have brains, so it seems unlikely they could possibly feel.

 

Well yea, but you wouldn't say that his right to live trumps your right to choose whether or not you should take care of this guy until he gets well?

I didn't bring that violinist into the world and have no obligation to preserve his life. I probably would anyway but that would be my charity.

 

Asimov, what do you think of my question as to whether or not a parent should be legally compelled to feed and take care of their post-birth baby? Isn't it their money, energy and time? Why shouldn't they have the choice of simply letting nature take its course? Do they have the moral obligation to take care of their children once the children are born and self-aware?

 

What about deadbeat parents? Should they be forced to pay child support if they don't want to? Isn't it their money? Do they have a moral obligation to take care of the children they brought into the world?

 

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice largely because the 1st and 2nd trimester fetus isn't a self-aware being, or at least there's no reason to think so since it doesn't have a developed brain.

[AtheistMommy]

 

Well yea, but you wouldn't say that his right to live trumps your right to choose whether or not you should take care of this guy until he gets well?

 

I don't feel any obligation to people I don't know. However, this situation would make this guy a parasite (not too much unlike a fetus) feeding off of another living thing in order to sustain life. No, I wouldn't say that his right to live trumps my right to choose. But then again, I also don't think life is "sacred." If nature has taught us anything it has taught us that life wouldn't exist without death.

[Asimov]

I didn't bring that violinist into the world and have no obligation to preserve his life. I probably would anyway but that would be my charity.

 

So? Some couples who don't want children didn't choose to get pregnant either. Essentially they were "hooked up" in the night without their knowledge and now the mother has 9 months where this baby is hooked up to her.

 

 

Asimov, what do you think of my question as to whether or not a parent should be legally compelled to feed and take care of their post-birth baby? Isn't it their money, energy and time? Why shouldn't they have the choice of simply letting nature take its course? Do they have the moral obligation to take care of their children once the children are born and self-aware?

 

What about deadbeat parents? Should they be forced to pay child support if they don't want to? Isn't it their money? Do they have a moral obligation to take care of the children they brought into the world?

 

They made a choice to bring that baby into world, the baby has moral status once it's disconnected from the mother physically and is no longer a part of her. The parents, by their very own choice of keeping the baby have an obligation to take care of the child.

[AtheistMommy]

As I've said before on this thread, the issue is not the biological definition of life but whether or not the being is a self-aware, thinking, feeling being. Sperm and overies don't have brains, so it seems unlikely they could possibly feel.

 

But you admit, they could possibly feel and are life. If life is "scraed" and needs to be so in order for anything to be deemed "scared" than we must have the definition of what kind of life is deemed "sacred." Therefore, biological definition is needed.

 

Asimov, what do you think of my question as to whether or not a parent should be legally compelled to feed and take care of their post-birth baby? Isn't it their money, energy and time? Why shouldn't they have the choice of simply letting nature take its course? Do they have the moral obligation to take care of their children once the children are born and self-aware?

 

This is like asking if someone should be punished for their actions.

 

What about deadbeat parents? Should they be forced to pay child support if they don't want to? Isn't it their money? Do they have a moral obligation to take care of the children they brought into the world?

 

That is no where near the same as choice over one's body. Yes they should be forced to pay for their child that they created.

 

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice largely because the 1st and 2nd trimester fetus isn't a self-aware being, or at least there's no reason to think so since it doesn't have a developed brain.

 

What kind of brain development does a fetus have during the second trimester?

[NobleSavage]

But you admit, they could possibly feel

Such a claim considering the absence of a brain would be most outlandish and the burden of proof would rest on the one making the claim. Until such evidence is offered, I see no reason to believe it and we shouldn't legislate upon it. It's also possible the Biblegod is real but I see no reason to believe it.

 

Same argument applies if pro-lifers say, "shouldn't we err on the side of caution and protect the fetus in case it's sentient?" Given that all indications are to the contrary, no. The burden of proof would have to lie with the pro-life camp that the fetus is, in fact, a thinking, feeling, self-aware being.

 

If life is "scraed" and needs to be so in order for anything to be deemed "scared" than we must have the definition of what kind of life is deemed "sacred." Therefore, biological definition is needed.

I don't believe life is sacred. I believe that self-awareness is.

 

Some couples who don't want children didn't choose to get pregnant either.

But they became pregnant as an unintended consequence of their actions. We're still responsible for unintended consequences of our actions.

 

the baby has moral status once it's disconnected from the mother physically and is no longer a part of her.

Interesting rule. Where is that written down? Why at the point of birth? Why not a year after birth like it is in the Bible? The fetus depends on being hooked up to the mother to survive. The baby depends on being fed by a parent to survive. It seems like you've made up an arbitrary rule that because it's no longer hooked up that the baby suddenly assumes a sacred status where the parent(s) are morally obligated to provide.

[KT45]

Sperm and overies don't have brains, so it seems unlikely they could possibly feel. Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice largely because the 1st and 2nd trimester fetus isn't a self-aware being, or at least there's no reason to think so since it doesn't have a developed brain.

When is a brain developed?

[NobleSavage]

When is a brain developed?

Good question. It's been a while since I studied fetal development but I seem to remember coming to the conclusion that the 3rd trimester was a cautious guess (erring on the side of early rather than late).

 

Since I also read that most abortions occur within the first trimester, I figured it was reasonable to conclude that abortion isn't a threat to sentient life and made the switch to pro-choice.

[AtheistMommy]

Sperm and overies don't have brains, so it seems unlikely they could possibly feel. Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice largely because the 1st and 2nd trimester fetus isn't a self-aware being, or at least there's no reason to think so since it doesn't have a developed brain.

When is a brain developed?

 

I looked it up...

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

 

Week 3

beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart

beginning development of the gastrointestinal tract

Weeks 4 to 5

formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones

further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm

movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels

beginning of the structures of the eye and ears

the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible

arm and leg buds are visible

Week 6

beginning of formation of the lungs

further development of the brain

arms and legs have lengthened with foot and hand areas distinguishable

hands and feet have digits, but may still be webbed

Week 7

nipples and hair follicles form

elbows and toes visible

all essential organs have at least begun to form

Week 8

rotation of intestines

facial features continue to develop

the eyelids are more developed

the external features of the ear begin to take their final shape

The end of the eighth week marks the end of the "embryonic period" and the beginning of the "fetal period".

 

Weeks 9 to 12

the fetus reaches a length of 3.2 inches

the head comprises nearly half of the fetus' size

the face is well formed

eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week

tooth buds appear for the baby teeth

limbs are long and thin

the fetus can make a fist with its fingers

genitals appear well differentiated

red blood cells are produced in the liver

Weeks 13 to 16

the fetus reaches a length of about 6 inches

a fine hair develops on the head called lanugo

fetal skin is almost transparent

more muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder

the fetus makes active movements

sucking motions are made with the mouth

meconium is made in the intestinal tract

the liver and pancreas produce their appropriate fluid secretions

Week 20

the fetus reaches a length of 8 inches

lanugo hair covers entire body

eyebrows and lashes appear

nails appear on fingers and toes

the fetus is more active with increased muscle development

"quickening" usually occurs (the mother can feel the fetus moving)

fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope

Week 24

the fetus reaches a length of 11.2 inches

the fetus weighs about 1 lb. 10 oz.

eyebrows and eyelashes are well formed

all the eye components are developed

the fetus has a hand and startle reflex

footprints and fingerprints forming

alveoli (air sacs) forming in lungs

Weeks 25 to 28

the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches

the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.

rapid brain development

nervous system developed enough to control some body functions

eyelids open and close

respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible

a baby born at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high

Weeks 29 to 32

the fetus reaches a length of about 15-17 inches

the fetus weighs about 4 lbs. 6 oz.

rapid increase in the amount of body fat

rhythmic breathing movements occur, but lungs are not fully mature

bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable

fetus begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus

Week 36

the fetus reaches a length of about 16-19 inches

the fetus weighs about 5 lbs. 12 oz. to 6 lbs. 12 oz.

lanugo begins to disappear

increase in body fat

fingernails reach the end of the fingertips

a baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival, but may require some medical interventions

Weeks 37 to 40

considered full-term at 37 weeks

may be 19 to 21 inches in length

lanugo is gone except for on the upper arms and shoulders

fingernails extend beyond fingertips

small breast buds are present on both sexes

head hair is now coarse and thicker

[NobleSavage]

Weeks 25 to 28

the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches

the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.

rapid brain development

nervous system developed enough to control some body functions

eyelids open and close

Thanks AM. That's around month #6 which is a little earlier than I remember but still safely past the period when most abortions occur. In fact, by this time the fetus might theoretically survive if removed. I feel pretty safe in saying that an abortion within the first five months won't harm any sentient being.

[AtheistMommy]

When is a brain developed?

Good question. It's been a while since I studied fetal development but I seem to remember coming to the conclusion that the 3rd trimester was a cautious guess (erring on the side of early rather than late).

 

Since I also read that most abortions occur within the first trimester, I figured it was reasonable to conclude that abortion isn't a threat to sentient life and made the switch to pro-choice.

 

 

Medication abortion:

available during first 49–63 days of the first trimester

 

Vacuum Aspiration:

available throughout first trimester — 14 weeks

 

Most abortions in the United States — nearly 90 percent — are provided in the first trimester. Fewer than 10 percent take place in the second trimester. But after 24 weeks of pregnancy, abortions are performed only for serious health reasons. Fewer than one-tenth of one percent of abortions happen during this time.

[AtheistMommy]

Weeks 25 to 28

the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches

the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.

rapid brain development

nervous system developed enough to control some body functions

eyelids open and close

Thanks AM. That's around month #6 which is a little earlier than I remember but still safely past the period when most abortions occur. In fact, by this time the fetus might theoretically survive if removed. I feel pretty safe in saying that an abortion within the first five months won't harm any sentient being.

 

You're welcome, knowledge is power

 

I just noticed I mispelled "sacred" like a million times. Sorry.

[Asimov]

The burden of proof would have to lie with the pro-life camp that the fetus is, in fact, a thinking, feeling, self-aware being.

 

A violinist is a thinking, feeling, self-aware being....doesn't his right to life trump your right to choose whether or not you should unhook him?

 

But they became pregnant as an unintended consequence of their actions. We're still responsible for unintended consequences of our actions.

 

A woman who's raped became pregnant as an unintended consequence of her actions.

 

Interesting rule. Where is that written down? Why at the point of birth? Why not a year after birth like it is in the Bible? The fetus depends on being hooked up to the mother to survive.

 

Why? Because we're talking about a physical connection that the mother has to this thing. The mother is using HER body, giving part of the food she eats, a lot of the energy she requires, her physiology is changing, her hormones are out of whack, she has negative effects (morning sickness), she's restricted in what she can/cannot eat, restricted in what she can/cannot do and then she has hours of pain to look forward to at the end of all that. That's why.

 

It's a parasitic relationship where the baby depends directly on the mother for survival.

 

The baby depends on being fed by a parent to survive.

 

By a parent. That could be anyone who looks after/adopts/takes care of the child. Anyone can take care of a child. That's not a direct physical connection.

 

It seems like you've made up an arbitrary rule that because it's no longer hooked up that the baby suddenly assumes a sacred status where the parent(s) are morally obligated to provide.

 

They are obligated to provide if they choose to keep the child. It's not a sacred status.

[Dhampir]

 

They are obligated to provide if they choose to keep the child. It's not a sacred status.

The man doesn't get to choose to keep or get rid of the baby. I don't think a man is obligated to anything until he makes a conscious choice in that direction.

[Asimov]

 

They are obligated to provide if they choose to keep the child. It's not a sacred status.

The man doesn't get to choose to keep or get rid of the baby. I don't think a man is obligated to anything until he makes a conscious choice in that direction.

 

Well yea...

[NobleSavage]

A violinist is a thinking, feeling, self-aware being....doesn't his right to life trump your right to choose whether or not you should unhook him?

I already answered that question.

 

A woman who's raped became pregnant as an unintended consequence of her actions.

Fortunately, we've determined that she has 24 weeks to get an abortion.

 

The mother is using HER body, giving part of the food she eats, a lot of the energy she requires, her physiology is changing, her hormones are out of whack, she has negative effects (morning sickness), she's restricted in what she can/cannot eat, restricted in what she can/cannot do and then she has hours of pain to look forward to at the end of all that. That's why.

[devil's advocate]And that baby is using MY money, getting part of the food on MY table, using up a lot of MY energy, MY schedule is changing, MY sleep schedule is out of whack, I have negative effects, etc. etc.

 

Same "parastitic" relationship without the physical connection. Why can't a parent say, "screw the baby, let it starve"?

 

Basically, you've introduced an arbitrary rule that because there's no longer a physical connection, viola, we have sacred status.

 

The Bible says a baby isn't worth anything until a year after birth. As long as we're making up sacred rules, why not use traditional ones? [/devil's advocate]

 

I'm basing my logic on when the life form become sentient, not when it's hooked up.

By a parent. That could be anyone who looks after/adopts/takes care of the child. Anyone can take care of a child. That's not a direct physical connection.

Irrelevant.

The man doesn't get to choose to keep or get rid of the baby. I don't think a man is obligated to anything until he makes a conscious choice in that direction.

See my earlier comment about being responsible for unintended consequences.

[AtheistMommy]

 

They are obligated to provide if they choose to keep the child. It's not a sacred status.

The man doesn't get to choose to keep or get rid of the baby. I don't think a man is obligated to anything until he makes a conscious choice in that direction.

 

 

Yeah, this is where I'm torn. Being a woman I can put myself in another woman's shoes. And I see my husband with our children and I know that if I would have chosen to abort one of them he would have had a big problem with that because he wanted a baby, still does.

 

I can see how a man could also feel the other way and say, not want a child because its just not the right time or something. The father should have some kind of say in it but what is the compromise if the father wants the baby but the mother doesn't?

 

Its easier if the father doesn't want the baby but the mother does, she can just be a single mother. But if he should pay for the baby I think depends on the situation at hand. I mean if she keeps it and he rapped her, I totally think he should pay though the nose. If it's a divorce, they should both have to pay for their child/ren. But if they aren't married and it was a one-night-stand or something, I have no idea.

 

I mean, on one hand, no one should be forced to be a host. On the other hand, should a man have the same right over the birth of a child they didn't carry but did help create?