In other threads I have pointed out the absurdness of locality (where the fetus happens to be) as a factor in the morality of abortion, to which pro-choicers responded by saying it was a matter of fetal development, with seemingly no defense for the locality argument. Well, imagine the latest stage in fetal development you would still support abortion. Now imagine that fetus existed outside of the woman. It had already prematurely come out and was hooked up to a life support machine or whatever. Would aborting the life of that human entity still be ok ? Would you still be ok with aborting if the fetus was not inside the woman? It would be the same stage of fetal development, so why not? Let's hear some explanations.
I even read one pro-choice argument that argued that the fetus's very presence constituted "an attack" on the woman and that therefore lethal force was justified. I'm not sure I have read anything more ridiculous. But some people will cling to any rationale apparently to try to talk themselves into believing what they want is right.
Sounds a bit like the "parasitic relationship" argument. Abortion is a horrifying thing, in my opinion, but overbearing, authoritarian government is even worse. The decision, and the moral consequence of making it, should remain with the mother, the father, their doctor, and their deity.
Oh please. I roll my eyes every time I hear the tired "It's a decision best left between a woman and her doctor" tripe. The woman could, and does, keep shopping around for different doctors until she finds the one who will "agree" with her decision. I've never heard of a case where the first abortion doctor a woman went to was able to exercise veto power because he found circumstances of the particular abortion too objectionable.
If the child is out of the mother in a state that no longer requires the mother's body to provide it life then it's no longer an issue of body autonomy. But then the vast majority of abortions take place long before fetal viability, so this seems like a non-issue.
The vast majority, but not all. This is more of a hypothetical thread, a thought experiment, if you will. Would you still feel the same way about it if it were possible for the fetus to survive outside the mother at a younger stage? And what does that tell you? That maybe the fetus is not just an inconsequential little lump of cells.
If the fetus was viable at a younger stage then the timelines for legal abortion would be different. Not much to consider here.
So? Why is that any business of mine? Or yours? Or some government entity? I find the practice deplorable and objectionable, but I also object to others imposing their notion of morality on me.
The real question is: What makes the fetus so different from everyone else? Obviously your rights end where someone else's begin. This is not as clear cut in the case of abortion but I believe the same basic principles still apply.
Uh, it's not just a matter of being "inside a woman"....it has to do with being attached to the woman, part of her body.....or did you think it just floated around inside of ther ???
The original question is nonsensical, even if it is a hypothetical. You'll have to come up with a less absurd scenario.
As a medical procedure, abortion means to bring forth a fetus before it is viable. Therefore, once the fetus is out of the womb, whatever procedure is carried out on the fetus is no longer an abortion, by definition. Roe v. Wade defines abortion quite narrowly - here, you're talking about something else.
Sure, this has already been covered in a previous thread on abortion. Roe v. Wade divvies up the timeline of abortion by fetal viability. Yes, once medicine & technology can remove a fetus & transplant it into another host - human, animal or artificial - then the timeline breaks down. Assuming that the fetus will develop properly in its new environment, an abortion for the health of the woman is no longer an issue. Cost & availability will remain difficult - but I'm sure that the pro-life proponents will line up to back the biological & medical breakthroughs & development to bring the procedures to market, necessary to make these procedures available to all who want to avail themselves. Once common enough, we could add these options to standard medical insurance coverage.
No, the real question is why should I concern myself with someone else's business. And what right do I have to impose my notion of morality on others by force of law?
No reason for a doctor not to perform an abortion, it's a legal medical procedure ...but if a particular doctor doesn't care to perform an abortion, there are plenty who will.. The decision is NOT between the woman and her doctor , it is ONLY the woman's decision...
How about I imagined that you had some ability for critical thought. In such a world you would realize that there is a difference between a single human cell and a fetus at 8 months.
And then there's everything in between. Is a fetus at 6 months so different from a newborn baby? Heck, what about when a fetus at 5 months becomes a newborn baby? It's very rare but it's happened.
You: ""Is a fetus at 6 months so different from a newborn baby?" YUP, the fetus is inside the woman and attached, the newborn isn't. Try to get this: A fetus isn't born, a newborn is BORN....
Yes ... Amelia was born around 22 weeks in ... just before the 24 week cut-off. I would have no problem moving the cut-off back to 20 weeks. This is plenty of time for a woman choose to abort. If she is too stupid to abort prior to 5 months then I do not have much sympathy for her being forced to conceive after that point. There is a big difference between a 5 month old fetus and the single cell at conception. I do not have a problem with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.
