Maybe I'm Inconsistent

[corplinx]

I see no problem in turning lifers in prison into soylent green. However, aborting a quickened fetus just because the baby has a cleft palate makes me want to kick someone's ass

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
I see no problem in turning lifers in prison into soylent green. However, aborting a quickened fetus just because the baby has a cleft palate makes me want to kick someone's ass

Kick the ass of a lifer in prison. Problem solved.

Jeremy

[DialecticMaterialist]

So what? It hasn't achieved personhood. That's like wanting to kick someone's ass for eating a cheeseburger. Sorry but I'm not swayed by the "Save the palette fetus" crusade at the moment.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Or maybe, to be consistent you should advocate that the mother get the death penalty. I mean it is murder afterall, and the whole of abortions are equivalent to "the holocaust". To a fetus the Supreme Court is Hitler.

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So what? It hasn't achieved personhood. That's like wanting to kick someone's ass for eating a cheeseburger. Sorry but I'm not swayed by the "Save the palette fetus" crusade at the moment.

What's the dividing line for "personhood," in your opinion? The article mentions late-term abortions, which I take to mean third trimester.

Jeremy

[DialecticMaterialist]

Quote:

Originally posted by toddjh


What's the dividing line for "personhood," in your opinion? The article mentions late-term abortions, which I take to mean third trimester.

Jeremy

I don't believe there is a single dividing line. Human beings and organisms are too complex for us to list a single trait as the trait that establishes personhood. Instead I think it involves a myriad of traits, from which we make an approximation.

It's like porn and art, there is no single dividing line, but you know it when you see it.

(for the record I'm ok with abortion, animal slaughter and the death penalty).

[geni]

From my high speed look at the case there is a good case to made that the abortion was ilegal.

(for the record I'm against this and the death penalty)

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I don't believe there is a single dividing line. Human beings and organisms are too complex for us to list a single trait as the trait that establishes personhood. Instead I think it involves a myriad of traits, from which we make an approximation.

It's like porn and art, there is no single dividing line, but you know it when you see it.

If so, I don't see it here. I see no significant difference between a fetus at, say, seven months, and a baby born at eight months.

Jeremy

[Nasarius]

Carl Sagan makes a good case in "Billions and Billions" (a collection of essays published after he died) that "personhood" begins when a fetus starts showing uniquely human brain activity. IIRC, this begins around the sixth month.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by toddjh

If so, I don't see it here. I see no significant difference between a fetus at, say, seven months, and a baby born at eight months.

Jeremy

Um, a month?

Since I don't believe Almighty Jeebus inserts a soul into each and every fertilized egg, I see this as a decision that society has to make for itself, and it has.

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Um, a month?

And that's relevant how? I didn't say there was no difference...

Quote:

Since I don't believe Almighty Jeebus inserts a soul into each and every fertilized egg, I see this as a decision that society has to make for itself, and it has.

Ah, moral relativism. I'm no theist, but I don't buy that either. Some things are wrong even if they are socially accepted. Slavery being the biggest example, of course.

Jeremy

[SRW]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late-term abortion is allowed in the United Kingdom for fetuses that are found to be severely mentally or physically handicapped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would support abortion for a sever handicap, but the law should be clear as to what means. Is six toes on one foot sufficient? Or should it be something that will cause undue hardship on the family and child which is not medically correctable.

[Dancing David]

My question is not about the fetus, but why do people care about it before it is born and then abandon it to the whims of society after it is born. I believe (personal belief) that we should not kill fetuses that would be 'premature babies', but I wouldn't want to be the one who decides what gorked babies live or die.

the problem I have (this does not include Corplinx, I share his indignation) is that the right to life movement doesn't care what happens to the kids afetr they are born, welfare reform, parental abuse and neglect are all real things. But i don't see the religous right coming out to foster kids, mentor them or push for social justice.

[American]

I don't think that's an especially minor condition, and the 6-month mark, while on the late side, doesn't bother me too much. (7 or 8 would.)

If you already have the right to abort for no reason whatsoever, which is how it is now, then what's the big deal if you actually have a reason like they did.

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
But i don't see the religous right coming out to foster kids, mentor them or push for social justice.

They are also the biggest ones fighting sex education and easy access to birth control, which would drastically reduce the need for abortions in the first place. It's pathetic.

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

I think this prosecution is mischievous (probably not exactly the word I'm looking for, but the only one I can think of which fits in with the JREF language policy) to say the least; the abortion has already been performed, so at best it arrives out of a misplaced and misguided sense of right:

Quote:

The fight is personal for [Reverend Joanna] Jepson, who said she would not be alive today if fetuses with facial deformities were routinely aborted[...]

which of course, they're not; parents have the choice; and what the Rev. J wants to do is deny the choice that her own parents exercised to other parents. Christianity has nothing on "leftist elites" when it comes to denying freedom of choice to others; I'm giving my last word to Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service:

Quote:

"I think it is absolutely bizarre that the Reverend feels - knowing absolutely nothing about individual circumstances of this woman, that she can go on to take legal action around it."

[geni]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think it is absolutely bizarre that the Reverend feels - knowing absolutely nothing about individual circumstances of this woman, that she can go on to take legal action around it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If it is against the law legal action should be taken if only so the law is made clear.

[BillyTK]

West Mercia Police had already decided there was no case to prosecute; it's basically a test case for the Rev to see if she can tighten the law to pretty much prohibit all abortions at 24+ weeks.

The 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act summary here is very clear that abortions may only be performed after this time if there is risk to the life of the mother, or grave risk to her physical or mental well-being, or risk that the foetus, if born, would have serious mental or physical handicaps. The Act is vague about what constitutes those risks, and leaves it up to the doctor, in consultation with the mother, to decide, which is as it should be; it's not up to a Church of England curate to decide these matters. She's welcome to voice her opinion as much as any of us, but I'm very uncomfortable about Christian morality intruding into medical ethics. <slippery slope fallacy>How long before we have "moral advisors" in attendance at surgeries, pre-natal and family planning clinics?</slippery slope fallacy>

[TomStockholm]

When you have a child born in the 5th month (25th week in my case) a six month abortion line sounds terrible...

I have no idea where, or if, the line should be drawn...

Maybe abortion should just be a question of pragmatics, because as far as I am concerned, you cannot argue for a certain point where a fetus becomes a baby...

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by TomStockholm
When you have a child born in the 5th month (25th week in my case) a six month abortion line sounds terrible...

I have no idea where, or if, the line should be drawn...

Maybe abortion should just be a question of pragmatics, because as far as I am concerned, you cannot argue for a certain point where a fetus becomes a baby...

Historically in western law the rule of thumb has been "once the fetus has quickened". Mind you I try not to have an opinion about the abortion matter because it forces me to some unpleasant areas.

However, I do know that some aborting because their child will be ugly makes me sick to no end.

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx


Historically in western law the rule of thumb has been "once the fetus has quickened". Mind you I try not to have an opinion about the abortion matter because it forces me to some unpleasant areas.

However, I do know that some aborting because their child will be ugly makes me sick to no end.

I take it you have a personal stake in this issue?

[BillyTK]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
However, I do know that some aborting because their child will be ugly makes me sick to no end.

And I agree. But we don't know if that is the case in this particularly instance.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by SRW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late-term abortion is allowed in the United Kingdom for fetuses that are found to be severely mentally or physically handicapped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would support abortion for a sever handicap, but the law should be clear as to what means. Is six toes on one foot sufficient? Or should it be something that will cause undue hardship on the family and child which is not medically correctable.

That's eugenics!

[American]

My point was ignored, so here it is again:


You can have an abortion for NO REASON at all, simply because you feel like it. Why is this any worse?

[BillyTK]

Quote:

Originally posted by American
My point was ignored, so here it is again:


You can have an abortion for NO REASON at all, simply because you feel like it. Why is this any worse?

In the US? Not in the UK.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by American
My point was ignored, so here it is again:


You can have an abortion for NO REASON at all, simply because you feel like it. Why is this any worse?

I think it is worse because the abortion was performed late term when the fetus was a viable human being.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Quote:

Originally posted by toddjh


If so, I don't see it here. I see no significant difference between a fetus at, say, seven months, and a baby born at eight months.

Jeremy

One relies on a human body, is more developed, and likely has more things activated due to external stimuli, while another does not.

It's sort of like the difference between killing an animal needlessly, like buying a dog at a pet shop and chopping off its head vs. Killing some sort of mamalian parasite that infested and fed off your body.


I'm not saying the fetus is a parasite, however whether or not something must use a human body makes a big difference.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Some key points:


99 percent of abortions are conducted before the third trimester. During this time most experts agree that an embryo cannot feel pain.

Quote:

Many physicians and researchers into fetal development, who are not pro-choice, believe that synaptic connections within the fetus' brain are necessary to perceive pain. These are not formed until well into the third trimester, when fewer than 1% of all pregnancy terminations are done.

Quote:

Pain in an adult, child, newborn or late-term fetus originates as an electrical signal in some of the body's pain receptors. This signal is sent via nerve pathways to the spinal column, then to the thalamus - an egg-shaped structure within the brain. Finally the signal is transferred to the cerebral cortex where it is sensed as pain. In a fetus, the pain receptors develop around 7 weeks after conception; the spino-thalamic system at about 13 weeks. Finally, the connections to the cortex are established about 26 weeks into pregnancy.

Now some pro-choice advocates believe that a fetus can feel pain within 7 weeks of pregancy. However this is called into question for various reasons.

Quote:

7 weeks: The embryo has almost lost its tail. "The face is mammalian but somewhat pig-like." 1 Pain sensors appear. Many conservative Christians believe that the embryo can feel pain. However, the higher functions of the brain have yet to develop, and the pathways to transfer pain signals from the pain sensors to the brain have not developed at this time.

2 months: The embryo's face resembles that of a primate but is not fully human in appearance. Some of the brain begins to form; this is the "reptilian brain" that will function throughout life. The embryo will respond to prodding, although it has no consciousness at this stage of development.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm


Those few 1 percent of abortions performed are usually done so for emergency reasons:

Quote:

Third-trimester abortions: Medical intervention to terminate pregnancies during the third trimester is quite rare. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 1% of all medical terminations of pregnancies are done at or after 21 weeks - (1994 data). It is sometimes done when the fetus has died in the womb. Termination of the life of a fetus is generally prohibited by medical societies' regulations after the 20th or 21st week of gestation. Exceptions do occur if required to save the life of the woman or avoid very serious, disabling health consequences. e.g.:


--- To save the life or health of a women experiencing a deteriorating health problem. This problem can rapidly grow worse with every day in late pregnancy, and can only be reversed by terminating the pregnancy. It is most often caused by diabetes or heart disease.


--- A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but cannot live for long; it will never achieve consciousness.


--- In rare cases, the delivery of the fetus can go terribly wrong, threatening the life of the woman.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late.htm

Quote:

Fewer than 1% of all abortions are performed in late pregnancy. They are prohibited by state and provincial medical associations, unless the fetus is dead, the abortion is required to save the life of the woman, or it is needed to avoid very serious health complications.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons. There is some evidence that, in the past, a physician in a hospital in New Jersey violated his medical association's regulations by performing late elective abortions -- procedures for non-medical reasons. Some groups opposed to abortion access extrapolated the New Jersey data to create an artificial national figure for third trimester abortions.

There is evidence that late abortions are sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late1.htm

[American]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think it is worse because the abortion was performed late term when the fetus was a viable human being.

Ok, that's fine. But is a "bad" reason really worse than NO reason? If I were the parents, I'd say it's nobody's business if we think a medical condition is major, minor, or in-between...

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by American



Ok, that's fine. But is a "bad" reason really worse than NO reason? If I were the parents, I'd say it's nobody's business if we think a medical condition is major, minor, or in-between...

Screw the parents. A cleft palate. I know someone who was born with one. They live a happy normal life and didnt even have their last corrective surgery until they were out of high school.

I guess giving birth to an ugly baby was too much for the mother.

[American]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx


Screw the parents. A cleft palate. I know someone who was born with one. They live a happy normal life and didnt even have their last corrective surgery until they were out of high school.

I guess giving birth to an ugly baby was too much for the mother.

I do agree with you. But what if she wanted to abort for absolutely no reason other than she felt like it (the current law, in most places).

[SRW]

Quote:

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Some key points:



Those few 1 percent of abortions performed are usually done so for emergency reasons:





[/url]

The key phrase being "usually done" ,as having a cleft palate does not constitute an emergency, what relevance does your post have to the topic at hand. Other than to point out that, late term abortions, performed for emergency or not, do physical harm to the fetus.

[SRW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


That's eugenics!

That is not what I would support, I do support abortion in the case of say a child who would be born with no chance for a normal life, such as one with hydrocephalus, who will die anyway or never have a life above the vegetable state. But I do not support abortion for cosmetic reasons at any term.