A condundrum about abortion

[Deleted]

So 1 year old is ok but http://southpark.cc.com/clips/150310...ned-parenthood wouldn't be? If you don't feel like watching the clip Cartman's mom tries to have her 8 year old son Cartman "aborted". Of course I never thought it would actually be relevant to anything but if 1 year olds are ok I just want to make sure I understand where the line is.

You can't abort after birth, you know.

[Fasolina]

Ugh... do we really need this thread? NOBODY is going to be convinced of the others perspective. This is just going to turn into the same old "I feel this way, therefore you are wrong" circular argument.

[negawonka]

You can't abord after birth, you know.

What about as a previous poster said 2 days before birth? How would you even do it? Deliver it then plug it with a .22?

[Deleted]

What about as a previous poster said 2 days before birth?

Doesn't bother me.

[Revi]

No, that's abortion on demand/request, not free abortion.

So you're with no time limitation? Killing a conscious and fully functioning kid is fine, as long as you do it before it leaves the mother?

[Puupi]

You can't abort after birth, you know.

Why not? It would be totally in line with the arguments and logic with your "free abortion".

[ellieg]

Ugh... do we really need this thread? NOBODY is going to be convinced of the others perspective. This is just going to turn into the same old "I feel this way, therefore you are wrong" circular argument.

But this is mmoc. We have to have controversial threads 24/7 to contain these people so that normal topics can exist. If not, these people would spill over into other areas, or heaven forbid, real life.

[Agnhar]

You can't abort after birth, you know.

the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
synonyms: termination, miscarriage
"her first pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion"
the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.

Now that is abortion what you are saying is murder and very very disgusting for me at least.

[Deleted]

Why not? It would be totally in line with the arguments and logic with your "free abortion".

Because it's no longer about your own body then.

[Underverse]

No I'm not.

Let me clarify; the moral issue at hand involves the cost of carrying the fetus, the opportunity cost of aborting a fetus (as in, what is lost if you end this life), and the conditions in which the fetus will be born; that is to say, if the mother cannot sufficiently care for a child and wishes to abort, preventing this decision must be justified as one already has a moral impetus for going ahead with the abortion.

Growing a fetus in a vat removes the cost of carrying the fetus, thus shifting the equation in the direction of immoral abortion. However, it does nothing for the 'conditions of birth' factor, which, if sufficiently negative to overcome the inherently positive 'opportunity cost' factor, is enough justification for abortion.

So as you can see, this thought experiment doesn't really change the equation in a fundamental way; it merely shifts it in favor of immoral abortion.

[Deleted]

Ugh... do we really need this thread? NOBODY is going to be convinced of the others perspective. This is just going to turn into the same old "I feel this way, therefore you are wrong" circular argument.

This thread was not intended to be about abortion rights or anything - it was simply to ask why a mother that tried self-abortion is charged with murder when she could have just gone down the street and had it done at a clinic and she would NOT have been charged with murder.

In other words - if abortion is legal, then you should have the right to self-abort without being charged with murder.

[negawonka]

Doesn't bother me.

I feel you are intentionally being difficult, because there is no way you can honestly believe that two days at the very end of the pregnancy yields a drastically different creature. I am pro-choice and even wouldn't mind if abortions were free, but it is within reason. Saying that it doesn't matter its all the same if it is in a person's body really saddens Macduff.

[Puupi]

Let me clarify; the moral issue at hand involves the cost of carrying the fetus, the opportunity cost of aborting a fetus (as in, what is lost if you end this life), and the conditions in which the fetus will be born; that is to say, if the mother cannot sufficiently care for a child and wishes to abort, preventing this decision must be justified as one already has a moral impetus for going ahead with the abortion.

Growing a fetus in a vat removes the cost of carrying the fetus, thus shifting the equation in the direction of immoral abortion. However, it does nothing for the 'conditions of birth' factor, which, if sufficiently negative to overcome the inherently positive 'opportunity cost' factor, is enough justification for abortion.

So as you can see, this thought experiment doesn't really change the equation in a fundamental way; it merely shifts it in favor of immoral abortion.

Aborting a fetus is fine. Aborting a baby is not. I rely on doctors to know the turning point. Once it's no longer a fetus, it becomes a person whose rights are equal to that of the mother.

[Lodreh]

That's a baby, not a fetus.

Until it can live on it's own it's a parasite... granted it maybe a 23 year old college dropout but it's still a parasite.

[Puupi]

In other words - if abortion is legal, then you should have the right to self-abort without being charged with murder.

Abortion being legal doesn't necessarily mean it's legal for anyone to complete the procedure.

[Azadina]

You can't abort after birth, you know.

ISIS has found a way to abort people after birth. Should that be fine too, if aborting a baby moments before it's birth is fine?

[Deleted]

Aborting a fetus is fine. Aborting a baby is not. I rely on doctors to know the turning point. Once it's no longer a fetus, it becomes a person whose rights are equal to that of the mother.

This just isn't true.

[Deleted]

In my book anything younger than, let's say, 26 weeks (when the cortex is developed sufficiently for my taste, i.e. there is patterned circadian activity, cortical reactions to peripheral stimuli, some earliest semblance of the default mode network working soooomething more or less like it should) is fair game. As in, doesn't suffer, so is more killable than a mouse (or any other amniote animal). After that? Well, the moral grey area starts. If it's grossly malformed (I mean something inctractable, say acrania) - which is an oversight, as it implies it should have been aborted - I'd go ahead and euthanize.

Reason is: because that is more or less our m.o. when it comes to adult patients in persistant vegetative state who stubbornly refuse to get better. Stop treatment or euthanize. Why not a child, just because it's cuddly-wuddly? That's rubbish, esp. when in the case of a damaged brain we're arguably never 100% sure the person is gone, while with an undeveloped brain... we're pretty sure there was never a ghost in that shell, natch.

[negawonka]

This just isn't true.

Unless there is a stage after fetus and before baby I am not aware of it is pretty much true. A baby is a person and while it doesn't have all the same rights as an adult does it doesn't have significantly different rights than say a 5 year old.

[Ozyorkbourne]

I never see people bitching about abortions in UK

There have been quite a few 'American style' anti-abortion rallies and harrassment outside abortion clinics in the UK.