Abortion - is it wrong?

nnmartin · Nov 12, 2011

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

I've been reading that you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy , that is 6 months, seems like quite a long time into a pregnancy and the fetus is basically a person by this stage?

Some information makes out that you can abort even later than this though it's not clear whether this would be a choice or not.

Any views on this?

jamaesi · Nov 12, 2011

It's unfortunate but not wrong; and not anyone's business unless they're the one having the abortion.

nnmartin · Nov 12, 2011

What is the latest that you can legally have an abortion without having a specific medical reason?

jamaesi · Nov 12, 2011

nnmartin said:
What is the latest that you can legally have an abortion without having a specific medical reason?

Depends on location. The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks, so it's sort of a moot point.

Madhuri · Nov 12, 2011

nnmartin said:
What is the latest that you can legally have an abortion without having a specific medical reason?

That depends entirely on where you live. The laws are different everywhere, even state to state in the same country.

Madhuri · Nov 12, 2011

jamaesi said:
It's unfortunate but not wrong; and not anyone's business unless they're the one having the abortion.

I tend to agree with this, though I would add that it is neither right nor wrong without context. I say it depends on the situation.

nnmartin · Nov 12, 2011

Well from what I have read, in the USA you can have a abortion up to 24 weeks by your own choice. You could get it done in a state that allows it.

In the UK it is also 24 weeks but two doctors have to agree that it is in the woman's best interest (I am sure there are private clinics that will always 'agree' though).

so how about just discussing these scenarios then.

Father Heathen · Nov 12, 2011

nnmartin said:
the fetus is basically a person by this stage?

Not really.

The Sum of Awe · Nov 12, 2011

Fetus is not alive, it harms no living things... You decide if it's good or bad.

Madhuri · Nov 12, 2011

The Sum of Awe said:
Fetus is not alive

Actually, it is alive.
If you disagree, I request that you define 'life' and provide some credible sources.

The Sum of Awe · Nov 12, 2011

Madhuri said:
Actually, it is alive.
If you disagree, I request that you define 'life' and provide some credible sources.

Well, not conscious enough to worry about being dead.

Father Heathen · Nov 12, 2011

The Sum of Awe said:
Fetus is not alive, it harms no living things... You decide if it's good or bad.

It's alive - in the same sense that bacteria is alive. It lacks consciousness, the ability to reason and the capacity for emotion. It isn't sentient/sapient and thus not a person. If abortion is murder then washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap is a holocaust.

The Sum of Awe · Nov 12, 2011

Father Heathen said:
It's alive - in the same sense that bacteria is alive. It lacks consciousness, the ability to reason and the capacity for emotion. It isn't sentient/sapient and thus not a person. If abortion is murder then washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap is a holocaust.

Exactly.

jamaesi · Nov 12, 2011

Father Heathen said:
It's alive - in the same sense that bacteria is alive. It lacks consciousness, the ability to reason and the capacity for emotion. It isn't sentient/sapient and thus not a person. If abortion is murder then washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap is a holocaust.

There's persons who lack some of those qualifiers you have stated as proof of personhood.

Yes, fetuses are alive and are human and are quite a bit more than just a lump of cells or a "parasite" or whatever else. Abortion isn't technically murder (which is a strong word for abortion at any rate), because the law doesn't grant them personhood and the rights inherent in that status, but it does end the life of something that is living and has the potential of being born and being granted personhood. That's all not the point, though. Discussions and debates that veer off into that territory just flail into a muddy sinkhole and does this place need yet another thread of talking point BS?

The point is if one supports bodily autonomy or not. Pretty much as simple as that. The oft used slogan of "Trust Women" is very meaningful when you view this topic from that frame.

nnmartin · Nov 12, 2011

Couldn't you use the 'bodily autonomy' argument for legalising drugs though.

ie: it's my body and I want to smoke crack - not harming anyone else yet it's illegal.

Or how about just a quiet reefer at home occasionally - where's the bodily autonomy law there?

nnmartin · Nov 12, 2011

How about having the law changed so that you can only have an abortion up to 8 weeks after conception? (except for emergencies).

markr1506 · Nov 12, 2011

Father Heathen said:
It's alive - in the same sense that bacteria is alive. It lacks consciousness, the ability to reason and the capacity for emotion. It isn't sentient/sapient and thus not a person. If abortion is murder then washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap is a holocaust.

If this was correct then why not allow abortions much later in the pregnancy?

A woman can go in to labour at 24 weeks and the child survive!

If someone was in a coma, they are without consciousness does that mean that they should not have the same rights as the rest of us?

Best regards,

Mark.

McBell · Nov 12, 2011

nnmartin said:
How about having the law changed so that you can only have an abortion up to 8 weeks after conception? (except for emergencies).

That would seem to make sense to me.

Why does 8 weeks make more sense to you than 24 weeks?

nnmartin · Nov 12, 2011

because the general consensus seems to be that consciousness begins at around 24 weeks.

McBell · Nov 12, 2011

markr1506 said:
If this was correct then why not allow abortions much later in the pregnancy?

Because there are people who not only want to give a fertilized egg all the same rights as a full grown adult, but who have also worked through the system to get the abortion time frame to where it is now.

markr1506 said:
If someone was in a coma, they are without consciousness does that mean that they should not have the same rights as the rest of us?

If they WERE in a coma, it is irrelevant now.

There is a difference between unconscious and and with out conscious.
people sleeping and in a coma are unconscious.
Rocks and embryos are without consciousness.

Abortion - is it wrong?

Well-Known Member

To Save A Lamb

Well-Known Member

To Save A Lamb

RF Goddess

RF Goddess

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.

RF Goddess

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.

Veteran Member

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.

To Save A Lamb

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Resident Sourpuss

Well-Known Member

Resident Sourpuss