If every state had the same abortion law, it would be.....

[DiAnna]

Abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks.

This. :thumbs:

 

[chihad]

I believe that as a parent to a child it is my responsibility to rear that child to maturity. If I cannot do so I feel it is unfair for me to place my burden on the people of this country because there is no true body in government that will ensure the positive maturation of this child. It is a proven fact that children raised in the foster care system have less likelihood to be successful as an adult and banning abortion just floods this system that is already overextended. I think if parents cannot rear their child and know this before 21-24 weeks, they should have a right to abort the child regardless of circumstance.

 

[chihad]

if a baby is in the world and you can see it, it shouldn't count as a person? I think, therefore I am ring a bell?

 

[Josie]

By the way, here's a week-by-week description of an unborn child if you're unsure when everything develops, what the child looks like and such: Fetal development week by week - Photo Gallery | BabyCenter

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

By the way, here's a week-by-week description of an unborn child if you're unsure when everything develops, what the child looks like and such: Fetal development week by week - Photo Gallery | BabyCenter

Thanks for the information

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

if a baby is in the world and you can see it, it shouldn't count as a person?

Like I said the infant can count as a legal person. After birth the human doesn't interfere with a women's right to abort thus it can be attached the right to life

Just because my position is different then from most pro choicers does not mean my view needs to be put into law.

The law can say as of now currently ''Everyone from birth on can count as if they were a person.''

 

[Bob Blaylock]

3. What defines a person should not be on dependency

I take it, then, that you disagree with the common use of “viability” as a line that has anything to do with when abortion is or is not acceptable? “Viability”, after all, is nothing more than a change in the level of dependency that the child has on his mother. Before that point, the child is dependent to the point that he must remain inside of his mother, and physically connected to her in order to survive. After that point, a child can be physically separated from his mother, and survive, but is still very heavily dependent on others to care for him; and cannot possibly survive without this care. Not for several years after this point does any possibility arise of the child being able to survive without others caring for him.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I believe that as a parent to a child it is my responsibility to rear that child to maturity. If I cannot do so I feel it is unfair for me to place my burden on the people of this country because there is no true body in government that will ensure the positive maturation of this child. It is a proven fact that children raised in the foster care system have less likelihood to be successful as an adult and banning abortion just floods this system that is already overextended. I think if parents cannot rear their child and know this before 21-24 weeks, they should have a right to abort the child regardless of circumstance.

What makes the 21-24 week point so special, then? If you have, say, a three-year-old child, and you think you are no longer in a position to be able to continue raising that child, should you have the right to “abort” that child at that point? I don't see anything about your argument for aborting up to the 21-24 week point that wouldn't apply equally all the way up to the point where the child no longer needs anyone else's care to continue living and achieving “positive maturation”.

 

[AGENT J]

Let's imagine that every state was under the same umbrella abortion law....a federal law. Let's assume that in the cases of rape, incest and mother's life at risk, abortion is allowed without question and without the fear of prosecution.

This poll is only about the cases where a woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (not for the above reasons).

At what point in the pregnancy would you ban these kind of abortions? Again, remove rape, incest and mother's life at risk from the equation. This is just about women who don't want to be pregnant.

I answer 21-24 weeks
my actually answer would be 21weeks (viability)

and just because im a stickler for facts and i think this is ignored to much because it would never be ignored in other laws/rights but pregnancy is always a risk to life, sometimes the risk is very small some times its very big but the risk is always present.

But in general people do use that description for "immediate danger" so i understand it

even with those reasons removes theres moral reasons people have and zero reason to infringing on woman's rights and force her to risk her life against her will before viability

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I take it, then, that you disagree with the common use of “viability”*as a line that has anything to do with when abortion is or is not acceptable? “Viability”, after all, is nothing more than a change in the level of dependency that the child has on his mother. Before that point, the child is dependent to the point that he must remain inside of his mother, and physically connected to her in order to survive. After that point, a child can be physically separated from his mother, and survive, but is still very heavily dependent on others to care for him; and cannot possibly survive without this care. Not for several years after this point does any possibility arise of the child being able to survive without others caring for him.

The unborn human once when born or hits the ''viability line'' changes from biological dependency to social dependency and most can see the huge difference there.


And yes I don't like the ''viability'' line to determine if the unborn should be persons because what if the pregnant women were to go to a different country who's lines of viability is at 31 weeks? If a pro choicers view of personhood is based on the viability line then the unborn human isn't a person in that country but would be a person in a different country that has more medical technology advancements.

There is something else though that happens around the ''viability line'' that a pro choicer can use to avoid this:

One can use electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex as criteria to define the start of human personhood. One might argue that fetal life becomes a human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness occurs for the first time, and ends when consciousness irrevocably terminates with no possibility of resumption. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.

According to author Richard Carrier:

"...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a mind to exist in at least a primitive state."

In my opinion a pro choicer would be better off using this as criteria for personhood not the ''viability line.''

 

[ToastyOats]

 

[AGENT J]

No elective abortion, period. It's barbaric, evil, and shouldn't be allowed in any society that values human rights and human life.

then your sentence doesnt make sentence because banning it factual devalues human rights and human life

 

[AGENT J]

1.)It wouldn't be used in any society that values human rights and human life.
2.)The fact that it is tolerated at all in our society proves that our society does not properly value human life or human rights.

1.) this logic is broken and its hypocrisy
2.) as soon as you used the word "fact" this makes your statement factually false

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The unborn human once when born or hits the ''viability line'' changes from biological dependency to social dependency and most can see the huge difference there.

I don't see that it makes much difference at all. The most significant thing about this dependency is that if it is not fulfilled, the child will die. The transition from what you call a “biological dependency” to what you call a “social dependency” doesn't change this. The child's life still depends on having this dependency fulfilled.

 

[minnie616]

What makes the 21-24 week point so special, then? If you have, say, a three-year-old child, and you think you are no longer in a position to be able to continue raising that child, should you have the right to “abort” that child at that point? ...

I would think a woman/ couple who want to have a child would be prepared for the responsibility of raising a child before
she /they have a child.

In the case of accidental or unwanted pregnancies that is not always the case...and that is one of reasons why some women might choose abortions.

Since abortion is the ending of pregnancy your analogy of aborting a 3 year year old is a " red herring".
If a woman/ couple decides she/ they is/ are " no longer in a position to raise the child" she/ they may legally give that child up for adoption.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I don't see that it makes much difference at all. The most significant thing about this dependency is that if it is not fulfilled, the child will die. The transition from what you call a “biological dependency” to what you call a “social dependency” doesn't change this. The child's life still depends on having this dependency fulfilled.

Agree to Disagree

Philosophically you see no difference while I do.

Yes there is still a dependency but it's different then it was in the womb

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Since abortion is the ending of pregnancy your analogy of aborting a 3 year year old is a " red herring".

There are plenty of attributes that your average 3 year old has that attends to personhood that the unborn don't have and that difference in attributes is the reason why both deaths are viewed differently.

 

[X Factor]

1.) this logic is broken and its hypocrisy
2.) as soon as you used the word "fact" this makes your statement factually false

AJ, here's my question for you. You claim to have some concern for the fetus, at least, at some point. Why do you argue almost exclusively with pro-lifers? There are people who are saying that a newborn infant is not a person. Why is that opinion not reprehensible to you?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)AJ, here's my question for you.
2.) You claim to have some concern for the fetus, at least, at some point.
3.) Why do you argue almost exclusively with pro-lifers?
4.) There are people who are saying that a newborn infant is not a person.
5.) Why is that opinion not reprehensible to you?

1.) ask away!
2.) yes this is true, at 21 weeks
3.) thats easy its a couple things

many pro lifers, well at least the ones that post often not the ones i have had honest conversations with simply dont agree with the FACTS or opinions i post and they attack the opinions as evil and psychotic.
I mean there are basically no common posters in abortion that see my views as anything but murder, immoral, evil, etc etc and then the even more biased and retarded ones will bring up slavery and nazis etc and they post outright lies and push their opinions as facts.

this is what i point out, i dont argue against it i simply point it out that its not fact or its factually not true

now when people simply post opinion and admit its opinion i have no problem with that whether i agree with it or not, nor am i against it nor do i want to change them.

Im mean im sure you can recognize the common posters that are prolife would never accept my opinions and facts



4.) well by law a newborn infant is in fact a person, outside of law person is subjective, neither of these topics have to do with abortion though in there content but if i actually read it and they stated it in a factually wrong way i would glaldy correct them.

with that said there are also some people i just ignore because i dont believe they are real

5.) i dont find it reprehensible i just find it to be what it is, factually wrong when talkign about law and mental inapt to think otherwise.
for me its basically impossible to get emotional on a message board so my emotions never come into play, only logic, opinions and facts.

if somebody wants to have the false opinion that a baby is not legally a person they are a complete idiot on the subject at hand, if i think they are serious ill correct them if i read it, but they may just be a poster i ignore in most cases because they arent real.

if they just think its not in general (not law) well yes IMO thats inane and illogical

 

[Carjosse]

I do not want a limit a fetus becomes a person with rights when it is born. The only point I am willing to concede to is 28 weeks.

 

[X Factor]

I do not want a limit a fetus becomes a person with rights when it is born. The only point I am willing to concede to is 28 weeks.

Don't do us any favors. If you believe a woman in labor should be able change her mind and have the baby killed (so long as he hasn't been born yet) and the doc would have to abide by that, why bother trying to soft sell your beliefs?

 

[Carjosse]

Don't do us any favors. If you believe a woman in labor should be able change her mind and have the baby killed (so long as he hasn't been born yet) and the doc would have to abide by that, why bother trying to soft sell your beliefs?

Well since at that point the the child is technically being "born" it has rights and if the mother didn't want the child she would have done it before that point.

 

[choiceone]

I don't see that it makes much difference at all. The most significant thing about this dependency is that if it is not fulfilled, the child will die. The transition from what you call a “biological dependency” to what you call a “social dependency” doesn't change this. The child's life still depends on having this dependency fulfilled.

We've been over this before. Biological dependency means that the continuation of the life of the embryo or fetus is absolutely dependent on the life of the woman - if she dies, it dies, if it gets biologically disconnected, it dies. No amount of medical aid, no amount of oxygen and nutrients can change that. No other person's body can be substituted for the woman's.

For some of us, that is objective evidence that the embryo or fetus does not actually have life in itself and is not capable of having it. It is not present in the world outside of the woman's private life to which she alone has a right and has no capacity to live out in that world.

In order for it to live inside the woman's private life, her body has to contain it and work to support it 24/7 without any vacation, day off, or break for months on end and is subject to its suppression of her immune system, modification of her circulatory system and her hormonal state, and various other effects, some of which are detrimental to her general well-being. An increased risk at various levels of threat to the woman's life or major health functions continues while it remains in her body.

But the born child is merely socially dependent. If its mother, the woman who gave birth to it, dies, it can continue to live anyway, because it has its own life in the world, not in the life of the woman. No person has to have it inside her/his body or work to support it 24/7 without any day off or break. Hence, it can live even if all humane labor laws are followed. No person's internal body, immune system, hormonal state, circulatory system, etc., is affected by it. Nobody even has to have skin-on-skin contact with it in order for it to continue living. Nature outside the life of the woman provides it with oxygen, and if that is not enough, the same medical sources of oxygen can be provided that are available to all other persons. Its nutrients do not have to come from a particular person's blood or even a particular person's body - they can come from sources available to all other persons.

For some of us, this shift makes an obvious difference. Biological dependency effectively means the embryo/fetus does not have a life of its own and therefore does not have a right to life, because "right to life" in that case would mean a right to some of someone else's private life and a right to someone else's labor for survival without that someone else's consent.

I believe that each person owns his or her own private life, just as one owns one's own private liberty and one owns one's own private property. No one has a right to any of anyone else's own particular life, liberty, or property or to anyone else's labor without a legal contract. To me, that is why parenthood at birth is legally voluntary and people can give up their born children in legal adoption. Born children do not belong to any particular person, but to the public social world, so anyone in that world can volunteer to be their parents, even though the genetic and biological parents have the right to first dibs on that role.

 

[choiceone]

AJ, here's my question for you. You claim to have some concern for the fetus, at least, at some point. Why do you argue almost exclusively with pro-lifers? There are people who are saying that a newborn infant is not a person. Why is that opinion not reprehensible to you?

Those people are not speaking about legality. They are not advocating laws that allow people to deprive newborns of legal rights as legal persons. But those people who advocate laws against abortion are, in my view, advocating laws that allow people to deprive pregnant women of legal rights as legal persons. I don't like or respect that and will stand, speak, and vote against that with the power of my own life and liberty.

 

[choiceone]

Don't do us any favors. If you believe a woman in labor should be able change her mind and have the baby killed (so long as he hasn't been born yet) and the doc would have to abide by that, why bother trying to soft sell your beliefs?

No doctor has to abide by what the woman wants her/him to do at any point in pregnancy. If a doctor personally believes that all abortion, even abortion to save the life of the woman, is morally wrong, she/he does not have to perform any abortions. If a doctor's medical judgment is against abortion in any particular case, she/he does not have to perform an abortion in that particular case. There is no abortion on the mere demand of the woman in the US, because any doctor has a right to decline to perform one on either of those counts. Where did you get the notion that this is only about the woman? It is also about the doctor.