The time limit question

[JPUK]

I wondered if I could provoke a discussion around the cut off point for abortion, what it should be (if any), and the reasons why.

I am of the view that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, so would prefer not to debate that here. But I am interested around the question of when the rights of the baby arise. I've tended to accept the 24 week mark, since that is the law in the UK, but am interested to think through this position. Viability seems like a reasonable point for me - but is this depriving the woman's rights?

Interested to hear ethical and philosophical arguments and how these should be applied (eg. legally)

 

[Lursa]

I wondered if I could provoke a discussion around the cut off point for abortion, what it should be (if any), and the reasons why.

I am of the view that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, so would prefer not to debate that here. But I am interested around the question of when the rights of the baby arise. I've tended to accept the 24 week mark, since that is the law in the UK, but am interested to think through this position. Viability seems like a reasonable point for me - but is this depriving the woman's rights?

Interested to hear ethical and philosophical arguments and how these should be applied (eg. legally)

I've posted this for you before and others before. For your consideration:

There is no need for such regulation, several states and the entire country of Canada have no such restrictions and no more or less late term abortions occur.

As a matter of fact, NO late term elective abortions of fetuses take place.

There are only 4 such facilities in the US that will perform them.

Drs are not required to perform abortions they dont want to (unless contractually by their employer, which would only require it in medically emergent circumstances...so NOT elective)

Women dont wait that long to have elective abortions: they are more dangerous and painful that natural childbirth. One reason is that the cervix is not dilated. (Yes, there's more but really, no one ever even bothers to acknowledge this point at all to begin with)

Any woman bearing a healthy viable fetus can just choose to experience the safer, less painful natural labor, deliver it, put it up for private adoption, and make about $20,000.

--to further restrict late term abortions by law would mean govt intrusion into parent's grief who have already had to confront a tragedy: the possible loss of life of the mother, the terminal or severe defects of their unborn. These people and their Dr would be subjected to govt violations of their medical privacy, questioning, and invasion into their pain. Unnecessarily, since these types of late term abortion dont happen electively.​

Now who can provide the data for how many late term elective abortions are being legally performed in the US?

And can anyone explain why they feel there is a need for "useless, feel-good" legislation that can actually do harm to families in pain?

 

[Napoleon]

The Supreme Court decided that the right to abortion extends only to the point of fetal viability. They wisely did not specify a timeframe because advances in medical technology can make that a moving target. I happen to agree with that.

 

[Chezanie]

The limit should be at conception. That is the moment when a unique human being is formed. Even if it is technically and physically a ball of cells at that point and for a few days afterward, it is a 100% human and alive, and it is a separate entity from the woman's body. That is the point at which life starts.

We all started living at conception, not viability or birth.

 

[Lursa]

The limit should be at conception. That is the moment when a unique human being is formed. Even if it is technically and physically a ball of cells at that point and for a few days afterward, it is a 100% human and alive, and it is a separate entity from the woman's body. That is the point at which life starts.

So then the govt may intrude into every female's medical records from the time she reaches puberty until menopause? (And of course, men would not have their rights violated this way)

Would that be ok to you in order to stop abortions? The abdication of your Constitutional rights and bodily sovereignty?

Well ok, you'd still be allowed to vote, for instance, well, that is until you were convicted of committing the felony of having an abortion after the govt was not adequately able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you really miscarried. Then as a felon you'd lose your right to vote too.

 

[Chezanie]

So then the govt may intrude into every female's medical records from the time she reaches puberty until menopause? (And of course, men would not have their rights violated this way)

Would that be ok to you in order to stop abortions? The abdication of your Constitutional rights and bodily sovereignty?

Well ok, you'd still be allowed to vote, for instance, well, that is until you were convicted of committing the felony of having an abortion after the govt was not adequately able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you really miscarried. Then as a felon you'd lose your right to vote too.

No. Abortion should merely be made illegal in most cases. If a woman says she miscarried and there's no proof of otherwise, leave her alone. If she got an illegal abortion, leave her alone and find the person who performed the illegal abortion.

That's what I would do, besides offering the woman counseling.

And the baby's bodily sovereignty to not be torn apart trumps the woman's right to have an innocent life killed for obvious reasons.

And I don't see how the first sentence you wrote makes any sense to this issue.

 

[southwest88]

There is no "mere" to making abortion illegal

No. Abortion should merely be made illegal in most cases. If a woman says she miscarried and there's no proof of otherwise, leave her alone. If she got an illegal abortion, leave her alone and find the person who performed the illegal abortion.

That's what I would do, besides offering the woman counseling.

And the baby's bodily sovereignty to not be torn apart trumps the woman's right to have an innocent life killed for obvious reasons.

And I don't see how the first sentence you wrote makes any sense to this issue.

she got an illegal abortion … find the person who performed - Ah, so you want a return to the status quo before Roe v. Wade: Women with the means or with the medical connections go away somewhere for a brief vacation, & when they return, their placental luggage has been misplaced somewhere, somehow. & doubtless, in that place, there is no illegal abortion, & so everyone lives happily ever after?

One of the Supreme Court's intents with Roe was to even out the savage inequities: that women without means nor medical connections had to suffer through the pregnancy, & carry the fetus to term. (Or try to abort themselves, fall down steps, or take their chances on a back alley abortion, etc.)

Roe, of course, doesn't see a baby in the womb - it sees a fetus, up until the fetus is viable.

innocent life - is a theological issue, or possibly a moral one. As the fetus has no voice (& indeed, Roe doesn't recognize it as a person, in the legal sense), the pregnant woman necessarily acts on its behalf. That has always been the understanding of common law in the UK, in the American colonies that became the US, & in the US. The law runs on its own logic - but the law ignores theological issues as not germane; it may pay attention to a moral one, if enough voters & the sense of the population overall engage on the subject. To date, the majority of voters seem to accept Roe as it stands.

 

[Chezanie]

Re: There is no "mere" to making abortion illegal

The law allows the woman to act on her child's behalf, which is a fancy way of saying she has the legal right to kill it. But not the moral right.

In abortion or miscarriage, no one lives happily ever after; the child has died in both cases, in one the abortionist is a criminal and should be found and punished accordingly. As many illegal abortionists as possible should be eliminated. This way access to illegal abortions would be nearly impossible. The only way you would get an legal abortion is to go in a hospital and have a certified doctor tell you that you are going to die if you don't terminate the baby's life immediately.

What Roe V. Wade says and doesn't say is a silly point, because once again - the legality of something does not mean it is moral. Morality and legality are separate from each other, as has been proven through-out history time and time again.

But then again you could say that morality is subjective - in which case I welcome you to go look at my post in response to Lursa on the thread "AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility"

Of course it wouldn't be easy making something that has been legal for so many years illegal. But it would be worth it because even if there were still 50,000 illegal abortions in the US, that would mean nearly a million lives were saved.

 

[prometeus]

The limit should be at conception. That is the moment when a unique human being is formed.

Out of clay no doubt.

 

[prometeus]

No. Abortion should merely be made illegal in most cases. If a woman says she miscarried and there's no proof of otherwise, leave her alone.

And what would you do to find proof? Wateboard?

If she got an illegal abortion

You mean you would find out after waterboarding?

leave her alone and find the person who performed the illegal abortion.

And have them summarily executed eh?

That's what I would do

Nobody gives a crap.

besides offering the woman counseling.

Bible study?

And the baby's bodily sovereignty to not be torn apart

Why not educate yourself before posting ignorant crap?

trumps the woman's right to have an innocent life killed for obvious reasons.

How the **** would you know the reasons?

 

[Chezanie]

I realize arguing with you is pointless by now, I have done it before and you do nothing but ad-hominen and spew out a bunch of bad words and useless points that make absolutely no sense. I'm beginning to doubt you even read what you reply to.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Re: There is no "mere" to making abortion illegal

.... the abortionist is a criminal and should be found and punished accordingly. As many illegal abortionists as possible should be eliminated.

Striking choice of words. Care to elaborate?

 

[Chezanie]

Re: There is no "mere" to making abortion illegal

Striking choice of words. Care to elaborate?

Abortionists are murderers. They should go to the place where murderers go.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Re: There is no "mere" to making abortion illegal

Abortionists are murderers. They should go to the place where murderers go.

Where’s that and who should send them there?

 

[Casper]

I wondered if I could provoke a discussion around the cut off point for abortion, what it should be (if any), and the reasons why.

I am of the view that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, so would prefer not to debate that here. But I am interested around the question of when the rights of the baby arise. I've tended to accept the 24 week mark, since that is the law in the UK, but am interested to think through this position. Viability seems like a reasonable point for me - but is this depriving the woman's rights?

Interested to hear ethical and philosophical arguments and how these should be applied (eg. legally)

Somewhere around 22 to 24 weeks, it is when the brain is in a more developed stage. We as People reside in the brain, before that we only have potential of become a person. This would be a time I would think of it as fitting the term baby. After that there should very serious health issues in play for me to consider it justified morally.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The limit should be at conception. That is the moment when a unique human being is formed. Even if it is technically and physically a ball of cells at that point and for a few days afterward, it is a 100% human and alive, and it is a separate entity from the woman's body. That is the point at which life starts.

We all started living at conception, not viability or birth.

You're lacking a reason. You imply that it's wrong to abort at any time after conception because the embryo is a human.

So tell us, why is it wrong to kill a human, and why do those reasons apply to an embryo?

 

[Lursa]

No. Abortion should merely be made illegal in most cases. If a woman says she miscarried and there's no proof of otherwise, leave her alone. If she got an illegal abortion, leave her alone and find the person who performed the illegal abortion.

That's what I would do, besides offering the woman counseling.

And the baby's bodily sovereignty to not be torn apart trumps the woman's right to have an innocent life killed for obvious reasons.

And I don't see how the first sentence you wrote makes any sense to this issue.

So you really have no idea what you are asking for. So you consider abortion murder, but if a woman denies it, we ignore it?

And why punish a Dr who is carrying out his patient's wishes but not the patient? What kind of hypocrisy is that? Is abortion murder or not?

When you say you dont understand my first sentence, it means you are completely clueless about women's Constitutional rights...YOUR Constitutional rights :doh These are the protections that keep the govt from intruding in people's marital, familial, and reproductive decisions...there are at least 10 precedents that support this and came before the RvW. Not only that, Minnie has posted them more than once here.

And you commit the sin of lying again...because it's been explained to you that 97.5% of all abortions consist of the pea-sized or smaller unborn being flushed painlessly and unaware from the womb. The rest are all medically necessary and anesthetic injection is used BY LAW to anesthetize and kill the fetus first.

As for dismemberment...it's to prevent even more damage to the mother...just how cruel would you like Drs...or the law...to be to women faced with the tragic decision of her own life or that of a terminally ill or severely defective fetus? And you think "I'm" inhumane? :roll:

This stuff has been repeated for you over and over. You post in bad faith when you continue to do so as if you havent heard it before.

 

[southwest88]

Re: There is no "mere" to making abortion illegal

Abortionists are murderers. They should go to the place where murderers go.

No, if an abortion in the US falls under the guidelines of Roe v. Wade, then it specifically is not murder. Roe says that within the holding.

You are free to regard abortion as a sin, as a travesty of justice, as a lack of morals & so on. That's perfectly fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, the laws of the US are based on the basic legal documents of the US, the US Constitution & the British common law antecedents that underlie US common law, & US common law.

By those antecedents, neither in British nor colonial nor US law has the law ever recognized a fetus in utero as a person, in the legal sense of the word.

& so your opinion on the morality of abortion is purely your own opinion, & shared by anyone who agrees with you. For the rest of everyday US citizens, your private opinion is just that - your private opinion, with no force of law.

 

[Slavister]

I wondered if I could provoke a discussion around the cut off point for abortion, what it should be (if any), and the reasons why.

I am of the view that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, so would prefer not to debate that here. But I am interested around the question of when the rights of the baby arise. I've tended to accept the 24 week mark, since that is the law in the UK, but am interested to think through this position. Viability seems like a reasonable point for me - but is this depriving the woman's rights?

Interested to hear ethical and philosophical arguments and how these should be applied (eg. legally)

MOST "late term" abortions are due to health reasons of the mother. So making these illegal seems just cruel and dumb.

The small minority of other late term abortions can be categorized into two buckets mostly (e.g. see research cited at the end of this article):
- cases where women found out late about health issues of their fetuses
- cases where women wanted to perform the abortion, but ironically due to US anti-abortion movement, it's hard for them to find a doctor to do so and/or they have to travel to another state to perform the procedure and/or they have to figure out where to get money to do so and it just takes time.

In other words, imagine a pregnant working mother (yes, in US, we work until birth in many cases) who finds out on week 21 scan that her fetus has Down syndrome or perhaps there were delays at the lab and she finds out on week 23 instead. She has to start figuring out where can she possibly do an abortion, collect money from friends/family to do so, figure out travel plans, etc. All this while she is working AND grappling with the reality of losing her hopes for having a healthy baby AND making the very hard decision to abort... So yeah, even if it takes her a few weeks to get all this done, I don't see any reasons to restrict her tough choice.