abortion
Moderator: Moderators
-
azchurchmouse
- Student
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:36 am
- Location: Western United States
Post #101
Is it right that a woman can terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent even if her life is not endangered by the pregnancy but if the father does not want the child and the woman wants to keep it he cant do anything
The Supreme Court gave the woman the right to legally abort in 1973. The father of the child, (or fetus the term pro-choicers like to use) is a non issue. His opinions do not matter. The Court illiminated his rights, even though biologically he is the father of the unborn child. If he wants it, or doesn't want it, its a non issue. She holds the cards.
He is nothing in the eyes of the court. UNLESS The Court is trying to get child support payments from him later on, then he is very much involved.
He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The woman on the other hand gets her cake and can eat it too.
Post #102
Wow...hehe only took 6 or so pages to get back on topic...
Some medical definitions before I start...
foetus <- same result as fetus
<biology, embryology, obstetrics> A developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young (as opposed to laying eggs).
From approximately three months after conception the offspring take on a recognizable form (all parts in place, etc.). In human development, the period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy is the foetal period.
embryo
<embryology, gynaecology> In animals, those derivatives of the fertilized ovum that eventually become the offspring, during their period of most rapid development, i.e., after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented.
In man, the developing organism is an embryo from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of seventh or eighth week.
Origin: Gr. Embryon
baby
1. An infant or young child of either sex; a babe.
2. A small image of an infant; a doll. Babies in the eyes, the minute reflection which one sees of one's self in the eyes of another.
"She clung about his neck, gave him ten kisses, Toyed with his locks, looked babies in his eyes." (Heywood)
Origin: Dim. Of babe.
from
http://medical-dictionary.com/
In the scenario where the mother does not want the pregnancy and the
father does, the father does not have the right to compel the mother to
go to term with the pregnancy. She does indeed hold all the cards.
I recognize the unfair nature of the father being required to pay child-
support in the event the mother wishes to carry the pregnancy to term
and he does not. But that isn't the debate issue...
According to the current definition of person...the mother has the right
to determine what happens to her body, no one can abridge that right.
If the definition of a person expands to include the fetus then she will
lose that right after 8 weeks of pregnancy or so. Most laws regarding
abortion, begin to abridge the rights of the mother when it is possible
for the fetus to survive outside of the womb. Late term abortion is usually
only permissible when the life of the mother is at risk. So there is still
the notion of the right of the mother superseding the potential rights of
the fetus.
Some medical definitions before I start...
foetus <- same result as fetus
<biology, embryology, obstetrics> A developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young (as opposed to laying eggs).
From approximately three months after conception the offspring take on a recognizable form (all parts in place, etc.). In human development, the period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy is the foetal period.
embryo
<embryology, gynaecology> In animals, those derivatives of the fertilized ovum that eventually become the offspring, during their period of most rapid development, i.e., after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented.
In man, the developing organism is an embryo from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of seventh or eighth week.
Origin: Gr. Embryon
baby
1. An infant or young child of either sex; a babe.
2. A small image of an infant; a doll. Babies in the eyes, the minute reflection which one sees of one's self in the eyes of another.
"She clung about his neck, gave him ten kisses, Toyed with his locks, looked babies in his eyes." (Heywood)
Origin: Dim. Of babe.
from
http://medical-dictionary.com/
In the scenario where the mother does not want the pregnancy and the
father does, the father does not have the right to compel the mother to
go to term with the pregnancy. She does indeed hold all the cards.
I recognize the unfair nature of the father being required to pay child-
support in the event the mother wishes to carry the pregnancy to term
and he does not. But that isn't the debate issue...
According to the current definition of person...the mother has the right
to determine what happens to her body, no one can abridge that right.
If the definition of a person expands to include the fetus then she will
lose that right after 8 weeks of pregnancy or so. Most laws regarding
abortion, begin to abridge the rights of the mother when it is possible
for the fetus to survive outside of the womb. Late term abortion is usually
only permissible when the life of the mother is at risk. So there is still
the notion of the right of the mother superseding the potential rights of
the fetus.
-
Dark Haibane
- Student
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:41 am
Post #103
This is a two part question,
1~ No it is not right, nor fair as stated, for only one or the other of the parents to have their opinion heard about the child, who of which both are a part.
2~ No it is not right for the child to be aborted.
Having the one parent's opinion ruled out because the other's is deemed more important, regardless of gender. Parents should have balance of decisions made about a child, a system in which both give and take. This system should be used from conception. If it is an unwanted pregnancy or the child is the result of rape, the choice of the life or death of the child should not even be part of the parents' realm of responsibility...
Such is the state in the conditions and scenario of the question.
That having been said:
What of the medieval c-section? Though it is a horrid and terrible thing in my mind to consider, it does suggest that the rights of the mother do not always supersede that of the potential newborn. As azchurchmouse said in the post which I have quoted, doctors are rushing to save premature babies in one room while aborting a child in another. In our day such a condition to endanger the mother does not occure often enough to be considered as a legitimate claim to abort. In and before our time mothers often gave their lives in the birth of their children, though some could be saved by our current tech other couldn't.
Abortion hasn't become a qustion of right or wrong in the modern day, it is considered a question of what is does the mother think is easier for her to handle. Such beliefs are on par with chovanism.
1~ No it is not right, nor fair as stated, for only one or the other of the parents to have their opinion heard about the child, who of which both are a part.
2~ No it is not right for the child to be aborted.
Having the one parent's opinion ruled out because the other's is deemed more important, regardless of gender. Parents should have balance of decisions made about a child, a system in which both give and take. This system should be used from conception. If it is an unwanted pregnancy or the child is the result of rape, the choice of the life or death of the child should not even be part of the parents' realm of responsibility...
Such is the state in the conditions and scenario of the question.
That having been said:
http://medical-dictionary.com/ wrote:According to the current definition of person...the mother has the right
to determine what happens to her body, no one can abridge that right.
If the definition of a person expands to include the fetus then she will
lose that right after 8 weeks of pregnancy or so
azchurchmouse wrote:A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body: the unborns genetic code differs from his mothers... There is not ONE person but two SEPARATE people....
post...
http://medical-dictionary.com/ wrote:Late term abortion is usually only permissible when the life of the mother is at risk. So there is still the notion of the right of the mother superseding the potential rights of the fetus.
What of the medieval c-section? Though it is a horrid and terrible thing in my mind to consider, it does suggest that the rights of the mother do not always supersede that of the potential newborn. As azchurchmouse said in the post which I have quoted, doctors are rushing to save premature babies in one room while aborting a child in another. In our day such a condition to endanger the mother does not occure often enough to be considered as a legitimate claim to abort. In and before our time mothers often gave their lives in the birth of their children, though some could be saved by our current tech other couldn't.
Abortion hasn't become a qustion of right or wrong in the modern day, it is considered a question of what is does the mother think is easier for her to handle. Such beliefs are on par with chovanism.
Post #104
What of the medieval c-section?
What of it? Maybe I'm thick, but I don't get your point.
A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body: the unborns genetic code differs from his mothers... There is not ONE person but two SEPARATE people....
The issue isn't separate genetic code, but the right to determine what
happens to ones own body. What if the egg were implanted invitero and
the resultant embryo was 100% different?
In our day such a condition to endanger the mother does not occure often enough to be considered as a legitimate claim to abort.
? I assume you mean for abortion as a whole, but if you mean that a
woman does not even have the right to abort in the event of her life being
threatened, then you would be denying her the right to self-defense.
Statistical frequency is not an argument, the fact is complications in pregnancy
exist.
fyi... embryo/fetus = inside mother; child/baby = outside mother
-
Dark Haibane
- Student
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:41 am
Post #105
Maybe I should have defined the medieval c-section, sorry about that. Said operation, which was done more or less only in the medieval ages, is essentially deciding against the mother and in favor of the child living. I stated this to make the point that it has not always been standard practice to defer to the life of the mother. This is not to say that such a choice is the right one either. I believe that in such a case that the mother's life is in danger, everything should be done to preserve both the mother and the child, both should receive equal treatment as individuals.
The point of the difference in genetic coding is that the there are two separate individuals living in a temporary symbiosis. The body of the child, which has been misnomered an embryo/fetus, is inside the mother and is not a part of the woman's body. As such, the woman does not have the right to deny that second individual life even if the symbiosis is causing her stress or inconveniencing her.
In the case of the argument that it was an "accidental" pregnancy, the same rule applies because the woman in question has the choice to either risk getting pregnant or not.
In the case of the argument that she was raped it still applies because it is another life, the main inconvenience it causes is unwanted responsiblity or a responsibility that the mother is unable to supply, in such a scenario there are alternative means other than the mother alone supporting the child.
An embryo, fetus, child, or baby are all synonyms for the early development of life. Each name is often now used for different stage of development, but it is genetically the same. The central difference is the size.
What about the ability of the child to defend itself? A child while in the early stages of life while still inside the mother is more than an object. An individual that holds even the mere potential of being a child, an adult, and even raising its own descendants, is worth risking one's life for.
The point I was trying to make was that each case of said event occurs on such an irregular basis it should not be made into an overarching argument for other pregnancies. Every effort should be made to protect both the life of the child and the mother in all cases, even those that endanger one or the other.
Then it would not be the result of invitero fertilization. Such an indivitual would have the same genetic makeup as the DNA put into it.Chimp wrote:The issue isn't separate genetic code, but the right to determine what happens to ones own body. What if the egg were implanted invitero and the resultant embryo was 100% different?
The point of the difference in genetic coding is that the there are two separate individuals living in a temporary symbiosis. The body of the child, which has been misnomered an embryo/fetus, is inside the mother and is not a part of the woman's body. As such, the woman does not have the right to deny that second individual life even if the symbiosis is causing her stress or inconveniencing her.
In the case of the argument that it was an "accidental" pregnancy, the same rule applies because the woman in question has the choice to either risk getting pregnant or not.
In the case of the argument that she was raped it still applies because it is another life, the main inconvenience it causes is unwanted responsiblity or a responsibility that the mother is unable to supply, in such a scenario there are alternative means other than the mother alone supporting the child.
Chimp wrote:I assume you mean for abortion as a whole, but if you mean that a woman does not even have the right to abort in the event of her life being threatened, then you would be denying her the right to self-defense. Statistical frequency is not an argument, the fact is complications in pregnancy
exist.
fyi... embryo/fetus = inside mother; child/baby = outside mother
An embryo, fetus, child, or baby are all synonyms for the early development of life. Each name is often now used for different stage of development, but it is genetically the same. The central difference is the size.
What about the ability of the child to defend itself? A child while in the early stages of life while still inside the mother is more than an object. An individual that holds even the mere potential of being a child, an adult, and even raising its own descendants, is worth risking one's life for.
The point I was trying to make was that each case of said event occurs on such an irregular basis it should not be made into an overarching argument for other pregnancies. Every effort should be made to protect both the life of the child and the mother in all cases, even those that endanger one or the other.
-
Dark Haibane
- Student
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:41 am
Post #108
embryo and foetus are potential life, a living child or baby is 'alive'Dark Haibane wrote:
An embryo, fetus, child, or baby are all synonyms for the early development of life.
the difference is viability.Dark Haibane wrote:
Each name is often now used for different stage of development, but it is genetically the same. The central difference is the size.
Dark Haibane wrote:
What about the ability of the child to defend itself?
a foetus is not a child despite your attempts to define it as such
Dark Haibane wrote:
A child while in the early stages of life while still inside the mother is more than an object.
A foetus is not a child until after birt...see here
That is very admirable of you. I'm sure you would not want anyone to prevent yopu from following what you believe. Why do you seek to prevent the rights of others to choose.Dark Haibane wrote:
An individual that holds even the mere potential of being a child, an adult, and even raising its own descendants, is worth risking one's life for.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post #109
A "baby" is not a viable person without his or her mother. A developing person, err, I mean a baby, can do nothing to survive but pitifully cry for help.
Fortunately (and I mean that), for people with your position you avoid the noise inside the womb of the "developing human" being killed by an abortion procedure.
Abortion is jsut as much as matter of the heart as it is the mind. The logic used for "viability" of the young human is a road that takes you to conception and pre-natal care.
Why do women have "baby showers" if they are just carrying a mass of cells. Shouldn't a pregnancy be ignored until a baby is crying on the floor?
There is also pitifully few pregnacies that need to be terminated for reasons of the "life of the mother" except to make her life more convenient.
Death is not a pro choice. But without knowledge and truth, women are deciding on death. Let them see the "mass of cells" within them as "it" is being aborted. We certainly have the "scientific" technology for the "patient."
Is anyone afraid of the truth?
Fortunately (and I mean that), for people with your position you avoid the noise inside the womb of the "developing human" being killed by an abortion procedure.
Abortion is jsut as much as matter of the heart as it is the mind. The logic used for "viability" of the young human is a road that takes you to conception and pre-natal care.
Why do women have "baby showers" if they are just carrying a mass of cells. Shouldn't a pregnancy be ignored until a baby is crying on the floor?
There is also pitifully few pregnacies that need to be terminated for reasons of the "life of the mother" except to make her life more convenient.
Death is not a pro choice. But without knowledge and truth, women are deciding on death. Let them see the "mass of cells" within them as "it" is being aborted. We certainly have the "scientific" technology for the "patient."
Is anyone afraid of the truth?
Post #110
Of course it is. Mothers die in childbirth, babies survive.AlAyeti wrote:A "baby" is not a viable person without his or her mother.
You are being presumptuous as to 'my position'. I don't 'presume' to make cloices (often very difficult and heart wrenching) for others. This is something you would choose to do.AlAyeti wrote: Fortunately (and I mean that), for people with your position you avoid the noise inside the womb of the "developing human" being killed by an abortion procedure.
Straw man argument. (again)AlAyeti wrote: Why do women have "baby showers" if they are just carrying a mass of cells.
have you looked in the mirror?AlAyeti wrote: Is anyone afraid of the truth?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
