When is it too late to have an abortion?

[Patriotic Voter]

We, society in America, have decided that she can choose to abort for any or no reason before viability. That means it's ethical (compliant with external rules imposed by society), there's nothing to have an opinion about. You already know this, so I'm not sure what you're asking.

Your logic is not accurate. Society can agree 24 weeks is the latest a woman should have an abortion based on fetal development. That does not mean killing a healthy human being who would be viable soon after birth is ethical. Do you consider abortions ethical at any time before the 25th week just because the SCOTUS said they are constitutional or really think about the reason it was set at 24 weeks?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Mines over 80 years old and was signed by both my mother and father. Perhaps not all states require that? Perhaps each and every State should require both a mother and a father accept responsibility for a newborn child.

Scrabaholic does not live in any state. She lives in a province.

Sometimes there is only one parent to sign a birth certificate. Certainly the mother's name must be on it, but for various reasons the father can't always be there or does not want responsibility for the baby (such as IVF babies and rape cases).

 

[AGENT J]

Your logic is not accurate. Society can agree 24 weeks is the latest a woman should have an abortion based on fetal development. That does not mean killing a healthy human being who would be viable soon after birth is ethical. Do you consider abortions ethical at any time before the 25th week just because the SCOTUS said they are constitutional or really think about the reason it was set at 24 weeks?

Ethics, like morals are subjective so there is no accurate or inaccurate answer

IMO I consider it completely ethical and even ethical afterward depending on circumstances

 

[Wayne Jr]

Your logic is not accurate. Society can agree 24 weeks is the latest a woman should have an abortion based on fetal development. That does not mean killing a healthy human being who would be viable soon after birth is ethical.

You forgot to say why it would be unethical, what rule, specifically, would it break? Link, please.

Do you consider abortions ethical at any time before the 25th week just because the SCOTUS said they are constitutional or really think about the reason it was set at 24 weeks?

Ethics are just one set of rules to judge things by. Something can be ethical and immoral at the same time (compliant with society's rules but in violation of one's own personal values). Something can be ethical and unwise at the same time (compliant with society's rules but likely to bring unhealthy or otherwise damaging results).

If someone I personally knew invited my opinion and I thought the abortion would violate their personal values, I might advise them to be a person of integrity and not have the abortion so as to be consistent across ethics and their personal values. If they chose to go ahead with the abortion, that would be ethical to society, immoral to them for violating their own personal values, and immoral to me for their lack of integrity.

 

[Dacke]

When the baby is born.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You forgot to say why it would be unethical. What rule, specifically, would it break? Link, please.

IMO abortion is unethical when the fetus has a good chance of long-term viability, but forcing a mother to remain pregnant in the infanticide prevention scenario (see post #87) is immoral.

 

[Dacke]

See, timelines are actually a nonissue since most unwanted pregnancies are terminated within the first trimestre anyways. The ones that are performed later tend to be in cases where even many anti-abortionist approve of it (mother's life in danger or health complications for the fetus).

But, the fundamental principle stands; no one attains any rights until they are born and until a baby is born, it remains physically and physiologically attached to its mother.

 

[AGENT J]

IMO abortion is unethical when the fetus has a good chance of long-term viability, but forcing a mother to remain pregnant in the infanticide prevention scenario (see post #87) is immoral.

Nothing wrong with any of those views, just have to understand they are all subjective. Of course for you as an individual, they may very well be objective but to the world they are subjective.

I support prochoice laws because i can simply never imagine forcing a woman against her will to risk her health and life, violating her current legal and human rights, treating her as a lesser and second-class citizen. That to me is unethical, immoral or whatever somebody wants to label it.

 

[Wayne Jr]

IMO abortion is unethical when the fetus has a good chance of long-term viability, but forcing a mother to remain pregnant in the infanticide prevention scenario (see post #87) is immoral.

Morals and ethics are not the same things. Which are you talking about here?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Nothing wrong with any of those views, just have to understand they are all subjective. Of course for you as an individual, they may very well be objective but to the world they are subjective.

I support pro-choice laws because i can simply never imagine forcing a woman against her will to risk her health and life, violating her current legal and human rights, treating her as a lesser and second-class citizen. That to me is unethical, immoral or whatever somebody wants to label it.

Unfortunately no pro-choice law will stop anti-choicers who treat accidental mothers like they are second class citizens. All laws do is prevent the government from prioritizing embryos their own mothers do not know exist over female constituents who wish they are not pregnant.

If a decision is subjective to the world, wouldn't it be subjective to me too?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Morals and ethics are not the same things. Which are you talking about here?

Define the difference.

I usually talk about morality, but when deciding what to do with an unwanted human life comes into play, ethics should also be part of the discussion.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Unfortunately no pro-choice law will stop anti-choicers who treat accidental mothers like they are second class citizens. All laws do is prevent the government from prioritizing embryos their own mothers do not know exist over female constituents who wish they are not pregnant.

2.) If a decision is subjective to the world, wouldn't it be subjective to me too?

1.) well i couldn't care less about "anti-choicers" thier feelings are meaningless I only want rights and equality protected
2.) hmmmmm not sure what you mean

ill try to explain it better

. . if you hold the moral value that blue is a sacred color that can very much be objective to you, as an individual . . .the world isn't going to change that for you, but your morals dont really matter to the world they are subjective

 

[Integrityrespec]

When the physical burden on the woman to abort is equal to or greater than the burden to continue the pregnancy.
This is generally also the point where the child could be born and survive outside the womb even if an incubator would be necessary.
That is the point of viability and that is why the Supreme Court decision in Roe V Wade made restrictions on abortion prior to that point unconstitutional.

It's too late for the baby at any point after conception.

 

[MrWonka]

It's too late for the baby at any point after conception.

An Embryo doesn't get to decide whether or not it inhabits another person's body. If you want the thing so bad let's work on a medical procedure to transplant the fetus into your body so you can carry it to term for nine months and see how you feel about it. Oh, and then if you try and get rid of it so you don't have to raise it you get shamed by society for that too.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Define the difference.

Morals are your own rules that you impose on yourself. Ethics are communal rules that society imposes on everyone.

If you say "elective abortion is immoral", that means elective abortion violates your rules which you impose on yourself. Only an abortion you are personally considering having performed on your own body could possibly be immoral because you do not get to impose your own rules on other people. Attempting such would be an actual crime under the law and you could be charged accordingly.

When someone says "elective abortion is unethical", that means elective abortion violates society's rules. We can look up the law to determine whether or not that statement is true. In America and Canada, that statement would be false since we can prove that society's rules do in fact allow for elective abortion.

I usually talk about morality, but when deciding what to do with an unwanted human life comes into play, ethics should also be part of the discussion.

Ethics are the only part of the discussion. With regards to elective pre-viable abortion, you do what you want with your own body whether or not other people like it, and others are free to do what they want with their bodies whether or not you or I like it.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Integrity:

You know zygotes are not babies. Do you have any proven medical facts to tell us about why abortions should never happen for any reason?

 

[Bodi]

This question is not about when the unborn becomes a human being, person, baby, etc. Life begins at fertilization. That is a proven biological fact. However, many zygotes never implant; many blastocysts never develop; and many embryos never specialize into various cell types. Many women, whether they tried to conceive or not, miscarry before they knew about their own pregnancies. Some miscarriages happen later, after the embryo has begun to look like a human being. Fetuses rarely miscarry. When they do, there was a severe medical problem with the fetus and/or mother.

So from a purely obstetrical standpoint, the question about setting a deadline for elective abortions (she does not want or cannot take care of a baby now) is: "How late is too late?" Remember late abortions are rare because the mother wanted a baby if she does not have it before the 12th week.

When I have more time I will post informational links, so please be patient.

Essentially no woman has an elective abortion past viability...

 

[Individual]

Scrabaholic does not live in any state. She lives in a province.

Sometimes there is only one parent to sign a birth certificate. Certainly the mother's name must be on it, but for various reasons the father can't always be there or does not want responsibility for the baby (such as IVF babies and rape cases).

In any event, the primary question is "At what point in a pregnancy does/should government acquire equal or greater Rights over the prospective life being created by an individual Woman?"

 

[Waddy]

You should be allowed to kill your unborn child any time you wish.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

In any event, the primary question is "At what point in a pregnancy does/should government acquire equal or greater rights over the prospective life being created by an individual woman?"

If a pregnant woman's obstetrician expects her baby to be naturally viable long-term (defined by medical doctors, not lawyers), it is in the state's interest to keep the fetus alive. So if at all possible, a severely deformed or likely nonviable fetus should be aborted prior to when most babies are expected to be viable without artificial assistance. But if a stillbirth is expected, forcing the mother to wait until her fetus dies naturally is in nobody's interest.

 

[AGENT J]

Morals are your own rules that you impose on yourself. Ethics are communal rules that society imposes on everyone.

This actually isn't true, ethics most certainly can be individual.
they can also most certainly be communal also . . just saying ethics dont have to be communal

when using terms people simply have to be clear on their criteria

 

[Scrabaholic]

Wallet size? In America birth certificates have information I could not believe is on them, such as the baby's first home address. It also includes the names of both parents, sex, birthplace, full name, and time of birth. I can't imagine how all that information can fit in a wallet.

Our wallet size don't have all that on them - parents' names etc are on the long form. Here's an example of the wallet size:

 

[Scrabaholic]

The government is one of the doctor's governing bodies (state & federal med review boards, licensing agencies, etc, etc), so your post doesn't make sense.

Not in my country.

Then a determined woman will just use some other method. If physician consent were required for a woman's body to end a pregnancy, then no one would ever have a miscarriage.

This doesn't make sense. A doctor's consent is needed for any operation he/she does - otherwise he/she wouldn't do it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Yes, I know you don’t care. I just asked if you realized you are considered an extremist in the pro-choice community.

I am not an extremist in not wanting the govt involved.

 

[Scrabaholic]

What is "After Tiller"?

It's a documentary on late term abortion after Dr Tiller's murder. If you have Amazon Prime, you can watch it for free.

There is a difference between having an abortion done in a medical setting and doing something like that to kill the fetus. I am sure in America the latter would not be called a legal abortion at any stage.

I think you guys have laws against a woman doing her own abortion. We don't up here.

We have a law that allows suspects to plead "not guilty by insanity" if they have mental health issues that impair judgment such as schizophrenia. They can still get a guilty verdict though.

We have a similar one, it's called Not Criminally Responsible. They don't have a record, though. But they do have to go to a secure psych facility until they are deemed fit to be in society. It's very controversial.