Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Belk]

I would not consider C to be a proper definition of the word. It is too vague. What is meant by conscious existence? Of all the creatures we are aware of , only humans are known, for certain, by us to have awareness of their own existence so only humans would be beings if that were what was meant by the definition conscious existence. We would not need the adjective Human in the phrase Human Being and we would be guilty of redundancy to use it if that were a correct definition. So on that point we probably agree. However, I would include the idea of a conscious living individual and not just an existent thing like a rock or a piece of bread as qualifying as a being. A dog, or cat, or bear, or tree and a fetus are from my perspective beings with an individual existence though not necessarily conscious of their own existence yet conscious of the world around them as evidenced by their responding to stimuli which is missing in the rock or the piece of bread.

I'm going to guess that we differ in that you seem to consider a fetus conscious while I do not until latter in it's development (around 24 -26 weeks I believe).

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm going to guess that we differ in that you seem to consider a fetus conscious while I do not until latter in it's development (around 24 -26 weeks I believe).

Well then you do consider a fetus conscious at some point. How do you then determine the exact moment that it becomes conscious? If being conscious was the reason someone decided they would not be willing to abort a fetus would one want to test any fetus up to be aborted to make sure it had not reached that point? If so how would one go about testing for that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Whether you choose to see the baby in utero as a human being is little different from the way some people seventy years ago didn't see Germany's Jews as humans or slavetraders in the 1800s who didn't see Africans as human.

It is poor arguments like this which convince people the anti-abortion movement is wrong.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It is poor arguments like this which convince people the anti-abortion movement is wrong.

It is poor rejoinders to arguments like this that convince people that the pro abortion movement has no reasonable answer to objections.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would mean changing the way schools teach, that we have
all rights and no responsibilities, and that the government is our
nanny, there to take care of us.

It's this kind of disrespectful description and treatment of people on public assistance that drive many women to have abortions.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is poor rejoinders to arguments like this that convince people that the pro abortion movement has no reasonable answer to objections.

Fetuses are not adults. No reasonable person believes that.

 

[Belk]

Well then you do consider a fetus conscious at some point. How do you then determine the exact moment that it becomes conscious?

Since I do not abort fetuses I don't try to determine the exact point.

If being conscious was the reason someone decided they would not be willing to abort a fetus would one want to test any fetus up to be aborted to make sure it had not reached that point?

Doubtful. I would think they would be more likely to abort prior to it even being an issue.

If so how would one go about testing for that?

I have no idea. I am not a neurologist.

 

[pat34lee]

That's nice. Let me know when you convince the court system with assertions.

I'm not talking legal. Blacks were once legally 3/5 a person.
That never made them less than human.

 

[pat34lee]

It's a case of medical malpractice. Irish law would have allowed her to have an abortion to save her life, but the hospital did not realize how bad she was and that an abortion could have saved her.

The hubby thought so, anyway. I don't blame him though, for looking
for a reason for his wife's death. Malpractice for missing the infection
was bad enough. Failure to treat it competently was even worse.

From the linked article:
"31 October 2013 commentators on the case and law argue that the denial of abortion story was a convenient "smokescreen" to focus attention away from the protocol failures within the hospital, which should have suspected infection immediately upon admission to the facility and that Savita’s death was used by pro-choice elements to "grease the wheels of the Pregnancy Act", which would have had no effect on her had it then been in place."

 

[Belk]

I'm not talking legal. Blacks were once legally 3/5 a person.
That never made them less than human.

OK. Let us know who in the general public you convince with bald assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not talking legal. Blacks were once legally 3/5 a person.
That never made them less than human.

Actually, votes cast by black men counted as 3/5 of a vote cast by white men. That put black men 3/5 of a vote higher than women. Pretty sure they still considered women to be human.

 

[Archivist]

Actually the blacks couldn't vote. They were, however, counted as 3/5s of a white for purposes of representation in Congress. James Wilson of PA came up with the compromise. You are correct that this did not make them any less human. Slaves were considered to be property, there was no doubt that they were human.

 

[Archivist]

It is poor rejoinders to arguments like this that convince people that the pro abortion movement has no reasonable answer to objections.

There is no such thing as a "pro abortion" movement. Some of us believe that a pregnant woman should have the right to choose an abortion, but that doesn't make us "pro abortion" as you claim because we also believe that she should have the right to choose to carry the fetus to term. Pro choice is the correct description.

 

[smaneck]

I don't believe that any issue since the Civil War has divided Americans more than the issue of abortion. Is there any way that we can reach a compromise on the issue? Please complete the poll and explain your answers. For example, even if you personally oppose abortion would you be willing to allow legal abortions in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is in danger? Why or why not?

Personally I'm hoping to see a medical solution to this problem. I do believe a woman should have control over her own body. At the same time, I don't believe a fetus is a woman's own body. Eventually I would hope we could remove unwanted fetuses and implant them in women who want them. But right now I think the decision should be left to the mother and her doctor, hopefully recognizing that the fetus is a human being. There are too many factors involved for this to be effectively regulated by government.

 

[grandvizier1006]

FYI, to all the liberals wondering about sex Ed., the reason why most "right-wingers" oppose it is because they don't want to encourage casual sex. They don't want rampant hedonism to be promoted and for contraception to be seen as a way to "get away with a one-night stand". "Right-wingers" would rather have people waiting until they are physically and emotionally mature enough in a relationship to have sex, and possibly prepared for a child. And if they don't want a child, there are plenty of sexual practices that don't result in pregnancy.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Personally I'm hoping to see a medical solution to this problem. I do believe a woman should have control over her own body. At the same time, I don't believe a fetus is a woman's own body. Eventually I would hope we could remove unwanted fetuses and implant them in women who want them. But right now I think the decision should be left to the mother and her doctor, hopefully recognizing that the fetus is a human being. There are too many factors involved for this to be effectively regulated by government.

That idea of transferring fetuses sounds like a great idea! Adopting children is always smiled upon, so adopting a fetus would probably be seen in the same way. I feel like if our society had different priorities we'd have already done that.

 

[KitKatMatt]

FYI, to all the liberals wondering about sex Ed., the reason why most "right-wingers" oppose it is because they don't want to encourage casual sex. They don't want rampant hedonism to be promoted and for contraception to be seen as a way to "get away with a one-night stand". "Right-wingers" would rather have people waiting until they are physically and emotionally mature enough in a relationship to have sex, and possibly prepared for a child. And if they don't want a child, there are plenty of sexual practices that don't result in pregnancy.

Too bad the real world doesn't work that way. At all.

Teen pregnancy rates are higher in areas with abstinence only education:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

Turns out people have sex whether or not you teach them about it. The difference between a teen who was taught abstinence only, and a teen who was taught comprehensive sex ed, is that the latter teen is much more educated about the risks of sex. This means that that one teen (the one taught comprehensive sexual education) is more prepared to make the decision to have sex than the other teen (the one who was taught abstinence only). They also know that if they do decide to have sex, they need to use protection to prevent the possible spread of STDs or an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[smaneck]

Too bad the real world doesn't work that way. At all.

Teen pregnancy rates are higher in areas with abstinence only education:

As someone living in an abstinence-only state, that is absolutely correct.

 

[KitKatMatt]

As someone living in an abstinence-only state, that is absolutely correct.

I'm also in an abstinence only state. Unfortunately it also comes with a high rate of STD transmission

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378905

 

[Armoured]

Well then you do consider a fetus conscious at some point. How do you then determine the exact moment that it becomes conscious? If being conscious was the reason someone decided they would not be willing to abort a fetus would one want to test any fetus up to be aborted to make sure it had not reached that point? If so how would one go about testing for that?

Can you pinpoint exactly when red becomes green? If not, does that mean you can't point to a section that is clearly one or the other? A "line in the sand" is not necessary.