Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Meta777, Aug 4, 2018.
funniest thing I have read in years!!.
What would really be funny is if you tried to find specific fault with any of it.
We already have government control over child-rearing, to some extent.
Why do you have a problem with control over reproduction?
The government can take a child away from a woman but she can pop out as many children as she wants? Or choose to terminate them before they can pop out.
Sorry, sexual reproduction has consequences.
That's an excellent point!
We have sumptuary/sin taxes applied to regulate the consumption of many things, based on the possible financial burden they may place upon society, primarily health care and especially when it is government funded.
What exactly is your point? That we should force abortion upon women when they have a fetus inside them that may be born with disabilities?
If it's not part of her body then it should be easily taken out and set on a shelf to grow on it's own ….
Women should have the right to take foreign objects out of their bodies, the same right that you have.
And it's funny how you've been shown all this and told all this and have lost all the arguments on this and yet you keep posting the same old crap...…..I would think someone would have to be paid to do that....
And your little cartoon doesn't address the other posts you HAVE to ignore , like post 76....
See, it shows you not only have wrong answers but in most cases, NO answers
Anti-Choicers want to control women by taking away their rights to their own bodies.
Once women lose the right to their own bodies the next step is limiting who has children and forced abortions ….
You should be happy if that happens ...once women are nothing more than cattle they are nothing more than cattle and those in power can then force them to abort..
That's the world YOU want...
FoxHastings said: ↑
That's what Anti-Choicers want, government control of reproduction.
OMGAWD! You don't know the difference between child REARING and gestation !!!!
And YOU don't ??? So it's OK with YOU if women are forced, by the father or the government , to have an abortion.....YOU want the father and the government involved Well that means INVOLVED both ways
Well , according to you the father and government can force her to abort ….
Oh wow, how deep and original a thought....not...
Sorry, sexual reproduction doesn't have the consequences YOU prescribe
Only that people exercise responsibility for their actions.
Are you saying that I misinterpreted your point?
Hey folks, sorry that I sort of, um... abandoned this thread after posting it.
Lot's of stuff going on.... and... oh! This thread is already at 5 pages?
For some reason I didn't expect it to be so popular....
But I guess this is a topic that folks like to talk about.
Anyways, after skimming through the replies so far, I think I should post a reminder...
Please try to keep discussion here civil. I know this is a passionate subject,
but there's really no reason to be accusing folks you disagree with of
being and or believing this that and the other....
Also... after the skimming the replies here are the ideas/suggestions I've gathered so far...
Also tracked in the second post:
Where Should The Cutoff Line for Abortions be Placed?:
-Lovemaking (Week 0): Because Any Form of Abortion is Murder
-Conception (Week 0): Because Life Begins at Conception
-Conception (Week 0): Because since no one knows exactly when a zygote becomes a child, it must be assumed to qualify as one
-????????? (Week 12): Reason TBD
-Viability (Week 24): Because that's when the law defines a fetus as becoming a child
-Birth (Week ??): Because That is When a Baby No Longer Depends On Its Mother to Live
-Birth (Week ??): Because Woman Should Always Have the Right to do What They Want With Their Body
-There should be Exceptions in cases of Rape
-There should be Exceptions if Health of the Mother is Threatened
-There should be Exceptions if Life of the Mother is Threatened
-There should be Exceptions for Certain Fetal Abnormalities
-There should be No Exceptions to the Cutoff Point
-Graduated Restrictions and Requirements for Women Seeking Abortion as Gestational Age Increases
-Use Tech to Remove Human Reproduction to an Industrial Process
-General Abortions Paid for by Person Getting It (Not the Government)
-Loan Program to Help Fund People Who Want to Get General Abortion
-Improve Availability of Contraceptives
Lifestyle abortions should be paid for be the person (With a scheme to lend them money ala student loan style) only Exceptional cases funded by government.
Better contraception availability, ~50% of women that abort one baby will have a repeat abortion these are a good area to concentrate on improving contraception.
As expected, there were ideas suggested which were from either extreme,
though using different, but in my opinion equally bad arguments, compared to what I laid out in the OP.
You got your week 0 conception arguments of course, and then the ones for allowing abortion up till birth.
But... even the more middle-of-the road suggestions given so far aren't really that great.
Week 12 was suggested, but no reason was given for why. :/
And Week 24 Viability was suggested, which actually seems like a pretty reasonable cutoff,
but the reasoning given there was basically... 'because that's what the law says'....
Really guys? C'mon, I know you folks can do better than that.
But I guess I can't bash on your suggestions too hard, I mean... at least a few of you tried. :/
And besides, its not as if I've gotten around to posting my own thoughts on the matter yet.
And lol, maybe this is just a continuation of my own foot-dragging, but I'm kind of tired today,
I'll try and post my suggestions sometime tomorrow (assuming nothing else comes up).
I think this is where 24 weeks come from I'd say it's a little late drop it to 20 weeks except in extreme circumstances.
The earliest surviving baby is just over 21 weeks
The OP title appeared to make a statement, not a question, claiming "How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate"
I would appear it only has increased the debate leaving the issue to be unresolved, and in my opinion one which cannot be resolved in a way acceptable to ALL.
I would be most interested to find ONE major issue that the vast majority of voters would like our elected politicians to direct their attention to resolving and concentrate on how it could be accomplished in a rational and reasonable way acceptable ALL, left, right, progressives, liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. Instead we seem to be more intent on keeping issues which are less likely to be resolvable in the forefront to divide voters for the benefit of the political parties.
WTF is a "lifestyle" abortion ? Some stupid trendy new term that means nothing?
Abortion is a legal medical procedure and should be paid for exactly like any other medical procedure..
NO! The law was a compromise to help make abortion legal....wouldn't have needed a law at all but it was forced by Anti-Choicers but VIABILITY CAME BEFORE ANY LAW.
It's because a fetus is VIABLE at 24 weeks and all throughout this thread I had to explain what VIABLE MEANT...and some still don't get it.
V I A B L E means the fetus is able to live outside the woman without artificial means, ...how many times shall I type that ???
THAT is why it was agreed on as the cut off point...and I posted that probably several times in this thread alone..
Uh YA! You shouldn't bash anything you can't respond to....
Suggestions for what???
The issue has been resolved, abortion is legal and women have the same right to their own bodies as men do....
Any earlier than 24 weeks depends on the specific fetus's size and development.
Premature babies cost LOTS of money so if abortion was ever banned then the state(taxpayers ) should have to pay every penny that's spent to keep it alive..
The question of Abortion is one of morality. More specifically... the question is about balancing the morality of defending the defenseless from suffering against the morality of allowing people to have individual autonomy. In other words, while being a question of morality, there are clearly two contrasting sides to that question. That should not be forgotten.
But just to focus on one side for a moment,... consider the morality of defending others from suffering more broadly. That too is a question of morality, but there is also a touch of practicality mixed in. If fully grown adults protect others from suffering, then others may in turn do the same for them. Likewise, if we inflict pain on our neighbors, we may incur repercussions. Even in inflicting suffering on the defenseless, say a small child, while you may not have any fear of the child striking back with violence, that child's parent wont likely just sit idly by. As such, while the minimization of suffering of others may be thought to be a thing of morality, it isn't necessarily purely so, as there is plenty of self-interest involved. Though this is really neither here nor there... just wanted to point out that the question of defending the unborn from suffering is unique in that it is purely a question of morality. Unless you're the parents considering the abortion (or possibly the doctor), there aren't really any practical self-interests involved. The fetus isn't going to harm you, no one alive will fear that they'll be aborted by your failure to protect that fetus, and obviously the parents aren't going to be out for retribution... they're the ones supposedly making the decision. Purely moral...
On the other side of things, whether or not people are allowed individual autonomy/how much they are allowed has some pretty clear practical implications in addition to the moral considerations. And as a practical matter in general, I don't believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. But as both a practical and a moral matter I also believe that people should not be prevented from doing whatever they want, as long as what they're doing is not inflicting harm or infringing upon the individual autonomy of another. And I think it is perfectly moral, with few exceptions, to take away a bit of one person's individual autonomy in order to protect another person from suffering, especially if the first person is the cause of that suffering. That goes the same for the abortion debate... and whether or not the suffering individual is inside or outside of a uterus really doesn't matter all that much to me.
Though that said, the question of protecting a fetus from suffering completely ceases to be a factor in things if the fetus is incapable of suffering. I basically go by the golden rule here, if I was a defenseless fetus, I'd definitely want someone out there to protect me from suffering. But if I did not yet have a brain, I wouldn't care one way or the other, because... why would I? As a matter of fact, without a functioning brain, I wouldn't even be capable of caring... no more so than one who did not exist at all.
And so we arrive at the crucial pivot point, the point after which it is moral to stop a fetus from being aborted, the point before which the practicality and morality of the individual autonomy of the mother should be given precedence. The question of when life itself begins is less important here. Life in fact exists from the start, and even before then depending on how you define it. More important to this discussion is when begins a specific kind of life, or what I like to call, Mental Life, Conscious Life, or just Consciousness and also a fetus's capacity for Pain Perception (not to be confused with nociception). Criteria which I use for determining at what point abortion goes from being morally inconsequential to immoral.
Other considerations, how much opportunity a woman had to abort early on before the cutoff, and also worth considering is the type of life that would be provided to a child if not aborted. Though these considerations while important, I think should be thought of as secondary to the previous standards of mental life and pain perception.
Luckily, the science indicates that Mental Life or Consciousness and Pain Perception are inseparably related. Making it easier to settle on a tight range of points within the gestational cycle for where to place any moral cutoff. So then... let's ask, when does a fetus become conscious? When does its Mental Life begin? How early in the development can a fetus feel pain?
From the Journal of the American Medical Association:
"...Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus...Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks."
Based on this the upper bound for allowed abortion should be placed no higher than 29 weeks. And if we go with the idea that Thalamocortical fibers are necessary for pain perception, the lower bound should be no lower than 23 weeks.
"...others have proposed that thalamocortical connections could also be established indirectly if thalamic afferents were to synapse on subplate neurons, which could synapse on cortical plate neurons.29 ...thalamic afferents begin to reach the somatosensory subplate at 18 weeks’ developmental age (20 weeks’ gestational age)16 and the visual subplate at 20 to 22 weeks’ gestational age.17 These afferents appear morphologically mature enough to synapse with subplate neurons,31 although no human study has shown that functional synapses exist between thalamic afferents and subplate neurons..."
The above quote asserts a theory that while the fibers which are ultimately used for the transmittal of pain signals do not develop until latter in the cycle, pre-developmental 'afferents' may be capable, again in theory, of acting as stand-ins for those transmittal paths. I have seen no evidence or research to suggest that pain perception can occur any earlier, so the lower bound for an allowable abortion cutoff should be placed no lower than 20 weeks in the case that we want to be extra cautious. Of course, additional research in the field may change this assessment...
"...Some investigators contend that EEG patterns denoting wakefulness indicate when consciousness is first possible.5,36 ... In preterm neonates, the earliest EEG pattern representing wakefulness appears around 30 weeks’ PCA.22,23" (or about 32 weeks gestational)
This suggests consciousness isn't possible before the 32 week mark even in individuals who make it out of the uterus.
With the previous upper bound for pain perception at 29 weeks though, and wanting to be on the safer side of things,
I think its best to prioritize the observation of pain perception pathways and the structures needed for brain activity,
as a criteria over the observation of brain activity or consciousness itself. If we however can see that the structures
for consciousness are all in place at week 29, I think that would still act as a good potential cutoff point and reason.
Which leads me to these following suggestions for where the cutoff should be:
-Thalamic Afferents (Week 20): Because its been theorized that connections between afferents may be capable of pain transmission
-Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 23): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Thalamocortical Fibers
-Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
-Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 23-29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
-Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 20-29): Because this is the period in which a fetus develops the structures necessary for pain perception
-Mental Life (Week 29): Because fetal consciousness cannot and has not been observed to occur before this point
Separate names with a comma.