Your Abortion "Line"

[Hawk in SEC Country]

I voted 20 weeks. At that point you have a fully functioning human being. Not a clump of cells. You have heartbeat, brain function, breathing, and reaction.

People will still say...."well it's not viable outside the womb". Well, a 3 year old isn't viable for very long if it's not being taken care of 24/7 by it's parents either.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

What is the legal/scientific basis that puts it at 6 weeks?

Simple the brain exists and is active. It still has development to do a lot of it, but it has development to do until the person is 25 years out of the womb.

Just because it's not as active as a person outside of the womb doesn't render it not a brain. And considering we have people outside of the womb who have all sorts of abnormal brain activity that are considered alive.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'd have to see the long list of risks associated with getting those things removed like having an abortion does. I don't have an issue with abortion being used once or twice, but someone who uses for contraception (like they would condoms) is wrong. It would be like me going to the doctor every time I got a cold. I knew I could just go to the doctor and get it taken care of, but why didn't I do some things on my end to eliminate the effects of the cold? Maybe get some rest, take some medication, etc. I have no problem using their right to an abortion, but will never support them using it like contraception for than 1 or 2 times in their lifetime.

Your main objections seem to be that it is risky and that it could have been avoided. Sure. But that's isn't an argument that lets you ban it or denigrate those who choose it.

Once you are pregnant, are there less risky choices? I'd certainly urge people to use less risky choices. But it's still up to them.

Yes, it probably could have been avoided, but it wasn't. Just because you don't think it's the smartest or safest form of contraception doesn't meant is isn't a perfectly acceptable form of contraception. Plus, it's pretty foolproof. And while we usually focus on the dangers of abortion, there are also dangers from the pill or Plan B and, especially, from carrying to term.

If a woman says she'd rather not load her body up with hormones year after year but, instead, will use abortion to get rid of the rare unwanted pregnancy, how is that not a perfectly reasonable choice? Sure the abortion poses risks. But so does a continuous chemical disruption of the normal bodily processes. Especially considering the links between some of those hormones and things like breast cancer.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Simple the brain exists and is active. It still has development to do a lot of it, but it has development to do until the person is 25 years out of the womb.

Just because it's not as active as a person outside of the womb doesn't render it not a brain. And considering we have people outside of the womb who have all sorts of abnormal brain activity that are considered alive.

You have said nothing there that establishes 6 weeks as a legal/scientific point to block abortions.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

You have said nothing there that establishes 6 weeks as a legal/scientific point to block abortions.

In your mind. . . it makes perfect sense if one presumes that having some brain activity is the start of human life.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Hoosier, I, for one, appreciate your insight. We get enough of WWJD's already.

I certainly disagree with you, but thanks for giving it...again.

Now that we know Hoosier isn't one of the Conception guys.......who is? Anyone willing to fess up?

 

[theIowaHawk]

9 votes for conception (+3 before/after conception), 7 for 6-16 weeks, 13 for after 20 weeks. Pretty well distributed.

 

[fredjr82]

In your mind. . . it makes perfect sense if one presumes that having some brain activity is the start of human life.

Quick question. I'm sure you've answered it in the past. How do you handle someone on life support? There's brain activity, so I assume you keep them alive for as long as they continue to show brain activity. If you are comfortable with pulling someone off life support, how do you come to that conclusion as long as their is brain activity? The person on life support doesn't get the option, a family member does just like a fetus doesn't get an option the mother carrying the child does.

 

[hawkifann]

I hadn't thought about how I posed it. That makes some sense, in general, I guess. Somebody could be answering, "I would never have an abortion after conception", but not be seeking to legislate it for everyone.

That's pretty much where I come down. I'm not the most religious guy, so it's not based so much on that. I just don't like it as a form of after-the-fact birth control. I don't classify the fetus as a "human" until it's viable outside the womb (which keeps getting earlier and earlier, but currently seems to be in the early 20-week range currently), but I think that once you hit end of first trimester, you should know if you want to keep it or not. I get the gray and I'm a pragmatist, so that's why I'm pro-choice (I really hate the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels as I'm really not so much pro-choice as I am against criminalizing the action). Women have been making this choice since forever, basically, so criminalizing it doesn't eliminate the option, it simply leads to more women dying of complications.

If I had to pick a time frame, I'd say about 12-13 weeks (end of first trimester), but there are obviously complications and exceptions that can come in after that time point. I don't think I could ever counsel anyone to have an abortion and I can't envision any scenario in my life where I'd want one to happen....but I can't bring myself to make it criminal, either.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Mine goes like this..."Yo babe, what say you and me do our very best to make Planned Parenthood feel needed and appreciated tomorrow morning,...give me that thrill and i'll spring for that pill."

 

[HawkMD]

You left my choice off the list. Viable life begins at implantation. Life is a continuum.

 

[TJ8869]

Quick question. I'm sure you've answered it in the past. How do you handle someone on life support? There's brain activity, so I assume you keep them alive for as long as they continue to show brain activity. If you are comfortable with pulling someone off life support, how do you come to that conclusion as long as their is brain activity? The person on life support doesn't get the option, a family member does just like a fetus doesn't get an option the mother carrying the child does.

There are multiple distinctions between the two scenarios. For one, the person may have already informed their family they do not want to be kept on life support and requested that they be allowed to die in that situation.

Another difference is that in one case you are using medical science to keep someone barely alive when they would otherwise die, whereas in the other case you are using medical science to kill a living, growing being that would otherwise continue to develop and grow absent outside intervention.

But probably the most important difference is that it serves no purpose to keep someone artificially alive if they have little or no chance of ever regaining consciousness or living without the assistance of life support systems. Their life is essentially over. An unborn baby, on the other hand, is just beginning its life on earth. Barring a miscarriage or serious complication during childbirth it is poised to live a long life, so long as no one drills a hole through its skull and suctions out its brain.

 

[naturalmwa]

Pro-abortionist that are past ~ 12 weeks will wind up on the wrong side of science.

It is a matter of time before we have better medical proof of the atrocities being practiced daily around the world.

What question will science be addressing here?

 

[fredjr82]

There are multiple distinctions between the two scenarios. For one, the person may have already informed their family they do not want to be kept on life support and requested that they be allowed to die in that situation.

Another difference is that in one case you are using medical science to keep someone barely alive when they would otherwise die, whereas in the other case you are using medical science to kill a living, growing being that would otherwise continue to develop and grow absent outside intervention.

But probably the most important difference is that it serves no purpose to keep someone artificially alive if they have little or no chance of ever regaining consciousness or living without the assistance of life support systems. Their life is essentially over. An unborn baby, on the other hand, is just beginning its life on earth. Barring a miscarriage or serious complication during childbirth it is poised to live a long life, so long as no one drills a hole through its skull and suctions out its brain.

All really good arguments. The fact remains by Hoosier's standards you're killing a "human" because they have brain activity. I can agree that if the person's wishes were not to be kept on life support then they made the decision. What about the ones that never made their wishes known? That's killing a human by the standards set in this thread. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. You're either killing a human or you're not.

I think the 20 week threshold is a good one. The youngest baby ever born was right around 21 weeks into the pregnancy. So the likelihood of that fetus surviving with out support from the mother (not unlike the person on life support) before the 20 week mark is unlikely at best.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

All really good arguments. The fact remains by Hoosier's standards you're killing a "human" because they have brain activity. I can agree that if the person's wishes were not to be kept on life support then they made the decision. What about the ones that never made their wishes known? That's killing a human by the standards set in this thread. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. You're either killing a human or you're not.

I think the 20 week threshold is a good one. The youngest baby ever born was right around 21 weeks into the pregnancy. So the likelihood of that fetus surviving with out support from the mother (not unlike the person on life support) before the 20 week mark is unlikely at best.

But again keeping someone who's facing imminent death anyways serves no purpose as he says. So yes maybe they have some brain waves but they arn't coming out of this where they are going to ever live away from those machines.

No one pulls you off life support if you are expected to make it though. It's not like your wife can pull you off the machines when you are expected to make it just cause you happen to have a pretty good life insurance policy and she doesn't want to pay the medical bills. She can't even pull you off life support just cause you are gonna be disabled in the future. And if you think about it those are EXACTLY the reasons people have abortions 98% of the time. It's too expensive, it doesn't fit with my plans, the child will be disabled, etc etc.

A fetus is coming out of this where he/she will be a normal human being capable of surviving without direct assistance from machines. The fetus is normally "going to make it"

 

[coloradonoles]

I voted 6 weeks... something about a heartbeat resonates with me.

But in reality, VERY few people even know they are pregnant at 6 weeks.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

12 weeks for me.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I voted 6 weeks... something about a heartbeat resonates with me.

But in reality, VERY few people even know they are pregnant at 6 weeks.

That is exactly where I get stuck, the lack of knowing and options at that early time. That and lots of things have blood-flowing-pulsations, if it wasn't called the "heart" I don't think it would hold the same weight.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Still astounded by the amount of Conception pollers. I presume the ejaculation part is trolling, but add that and gastrulation and HROT basically has 18 posters completely against Abortions (not for sake of fetus/mother).

On the other end we have 17 after 20 weeks to pretty well balance it out.

 

[fredjr82]

But again keeping someone who's facing imminent death anyways serves no purpose as he says. So yes maybe they have some brain waves but they arn't coming out of this where they are going to ever live away from those machines.

No one pulls you off life support if you are expected to make it though. It's not like your wife can pull you off the machines when you are expected to make it just cause you happen to have a pretty good life insurance policy and she doesn't want to pay the medical bills. She can't even pull you off life support just cause you are gonna be disabled in the future. And if you think about it those are EXACTLY the reasons people have abortions 98% of the time. It's too expensive, it doesn't fit with my plans, the child will be disabled, etc etc.

That's incorrect. There have been people who doctors have declared "dead" on life support who recovered fully. Here is just one example

A teenager who was declared brain dead by four doctors has made a "miracle" recovery after his parents asked for another medical opinion, just moments before his life support machine could have been switched off.

Steven Thorpe, then 17, suffered horrific injuries in a multiple car crash, leaving him in a medically-induced coma and another man dead.

Doctors told his family he would never recover and asked them to consider donating his organs before his life-support machine was turned off.

So no you don't get to pick and choose which brain waves matter. You're either killing a human (who has the ability to come back) who has brain waves. You're the one who defined a "human" has someone having brainwaves.

Link

 

[icu81222]

I voted 20 weeks. At that point you have a fully functioning human being. Not a clump of cells. You have heartbeat, brain function, breathing, and reaction.

People will still say...."well it's not viable outside the womb". Well, a 3 year old isn't viable for very long if it's not being taken care of 24/7 by it's parents either.

As soon as I saw this post, I knew no pro abortionist would address it. They can't logically.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That's incorrect. There have been people who doctors have declared "dead" on life support who recovered fully. Here is just one example

A teenager who was declared brain dead by four doctors has made a "miracle" recovery after his parents asked for another medical opinion, just moments before his life support machine could have been switched off.

Steven Thorpe, then 17, suffered horrific injuries in a multiple car crash, leaving him in a medically-induced coma and another man dead.

Doctors told his family he would never recover and asked them to consider donating his organs before his life-support machine was turned off.

So no you don't get to pick and choose which brain waves matter. You're either killing a human (who has the ability to come back) who has brain waves. You're the one who defined a "human" has someone having brainwaves.

Link

Occasional miracles would not justify leaving the vast majority on life support when they have no known chance at recovery.

And that still doesn't justify going in and ending the life of a person that you know is going to become fully functioning in the future.

There is a huge difference between taking life support off someone that we are 99% sure is never going to recover and killing a fetus that has a good chance at becoming a fully functioning adult (% chance would be based on how developed the fetus is, however you still don't take someone off life support when they have a 50/50 chance and at all points after conception the fetus has a better then 50/50 chance.)

 

[fredjr82]

Occasional miracles would not justify leaving the vast majority on life support when they have no known chance at recovery.

And that still doesn't justify going in and ending the life of a person that you know is going to become fully functioning in the future.

There is a huge difference between taking life support off someone that we are 99% sure is never going to recover and killing a fetus that has a good chance at becoming a fully functioning adult (% chance would be based on how developed the fetus is, however you still don't take someone off life support when they have a 50/50 chance and at all points after conception the fetus has a better then 50/50 chance.)

I'll just accept this response as you get to decide which brain waves matter and which ones don't. I mean in the long run, it's all about control for you. You want to control what others do or don't do. It's not uncommon for deeply religious folks wanting to control others and their actions. This is just another one of those times.

#allbrainwavesmatter

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'll just accept this response as you get to decide which brain waves matter and which ones don't. I mean in the long run, it's all about control for you. You want to control what others do or don't do. It's not uncommon for deeply religious folks wanting to control others and their actions. This is just another one of those times.

#allbrainwavesmatter

So you can't see the difference between a person who's been medically judged to have no chance at recovery and a person who is medically judged to be fully functioning in the future??

That makes no sense.

And controlling people from killing other people for convenience purposes, I'm proud of holding that stance. No matter how unpopular it may be.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

As soon as I saw this post, I knew no pro abortionist would address it. They can't logically.

Well I'm pro-choice, with the belief that there should be stiffer guidelines and regulations.....and penalties.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I voted 20 weeks. At that point you have a fully functioning human being. Not a clump of cells. You have heartbeat, brain function, breathing, and reaction.

People will still say...."well it's not viable outside the womb". Well, a 3 year old isn't viable for very long if it's not being taken care of 24/7 by it's parents either.

Responding to this just for ICU:

Still, there is a difference. First, medically/scientifically. The question posed is whether it is a "difference" important enough to distinguish between the two.

Viability can't/shouldn't be shrugged off as easily as you try to. There are options with a 3 year old, the mother is not required to directly sustain its life. Certainly the vast, vast majority of mothers choose to assist it in sustaining life, but it isn't required, there are options.

Unless you propose a fairly easy option of detaching the 21 week old from the mother it simply isn't comparable, and you know that. The difference for you is where the concern lies. Your concern is solely with the fetus/child/whatever at that point. I'm not saying that you are wrong objectively, I am saying the discussion doesn't end because of a clever "3 year old" quip.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So you can't see the difference between a person who's been medically judged to have no chance at recovery and a person who is medically judged to be fully functioning in the future??

That makes no sense.

And controlling people from killing other people for convenience purposes, I'm proud of holding that stance. No matter how unpopular it may be.

I think you have answered enough time that posters should be satisfied with your answers. Kudos for you on sticking with it and arguing it out.

Side question, largely irrelevant, for you: If I, as King Iowa Hawk, implemented a law abolishing the practice of Vasectomy, or even say, Colonoscopy, or surgeries to remove cancer. Would you be, legally, ok with the implementation of that law? Not asking whether you would agree with the law, it would be an absurd one, but whether you would believe the government can, legally, implement it?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I think you have answered enough time that posters should be satisfied with your answers. Kudos for you on sticking with it and arguing it out.

Side question, largely irrelevant, for you: If I, as King Iowa Hawk, implemented a law abolishing the practice of Vasectomy, or even say, Colonoscopy, or surgeries to remove cancer. Would you be, legally, ok with the implementation of that law? Not asking whether you would agree with the law, it would be an absurd one, but whether you would believe the government can, legally, implement it?

Of course the government can legally implement those laws. I would disagree with them all, especially the life saving surgeries as it makes no sense to make life saving surgeries illegal. . .

Vasectomy even though I've had one I would not be all that greatly upset if they where not legal just as long as tubal litigation wasn't either.

(Fun fact: The ACA requires Tubal litigation along with all female forms of contraception be covered free of charge but does not make the same requirement on Vasectomies... In fact the bill specifically writes out male forms of contraception so that if say a male birth control pill is invented in the future, your insurance will not be required to cover it religious employer or no.)

 

[theIowaHawk]

Of course the government can legally implement those laws. I would disagree with them all, especially the life saving surgeries as it makes no sense to make life saving surgeries illegal. . .

So you do not believe there is any right to some sort of privacy, privacy in medical decisions, or right to control your own medical decisions?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

So you do not believe there is any right to some sort of privacy, privacy in medical decisions, or right to control your own medical decisions?

There is a right to privacy as in I have the right to not have my doctor talk about my medical conditions with other people.

But the the government through the power of the community has the right to regulate medical decisions and to make them illegal if they are unsafe or immoral.

The government already does this. . . in most cases you can't get a drug for something unless it's FDA approved. You also can't get certain surgeries unless they are approved. In many cases the FDA would prefer to watch you die then to let you take a drug or get a surgery before they've approved it. Where is the rage about that in all the talk about making one's own private medical decisions??

 

[theIowaHawk]

There is a right to privacy as in I have the right to not have my doctor talk about my medical conditions with other people.

You obviously, inherently, do NOT believe this as these laws would matter-of-factly require medical disclosure by the doctor and hospital.

A drug isn't even remotely the same. The government is regulating the development, testing, and delivery of the drugs. They are not intervening in to your medicial decision-making with your doctor. What surgeries need to be governmentally-approved? And if so, that is precisely what I am talking about....is that legal, in your opinion?

Pretty clearly you believe yes, there is no right to medical privacy and/or decision-making.

And to answer your last question: There should be rage, and I'm sure there is, from the few who face that. Pregnancy is a fairly widespread malady.

Following your logic on government being allowed to "regulate" if unsafe/immoral, then it necessitates allowable investigation. Much like the act of sodomy which was previously illegal before being found unconstitutional. It was deemed an invasion of privacy to investigate and/or control that aspect of a persons life.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I am at conception. At that point you have an individual instead of the separate cells of two different individuals. Its a pretty clear point of demarcation.

That said, I am like SEC. Pro-choice with more controls. Abortion is not a good thing. I am all for using birth control and a woman's freedom to use it.

 

[icu81222]

Well I'm pro-choice, with the belief that there should be stiffer guidelines and regulations.....and penalties.

I believe the same as you

 

[naturalmwa]

Still astounded by the amount of Conception pollers. I presume the ejaculation part is trolling, but add that and gastrulation and HROT basically has 18 posters completely against Abortions (not for sake of fetus/mother).

On the other end we have 17 after 20 weeks to pretty well balance it out.

I don't find this astounding, it is what I would expect on this issue.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I am at conception. At that point you have an individual instead of the separate cells of two different individuals. Its a pretty clear point of demarcation.

That said, I am like SEC. Pro-choice with more controls. Abortion is not a good thing. I am all for using birth control and a woman's freedom to use it.

I am entirely confused.

How are you "at conception" but Pro-Choice? Are you saying what you, personally, would decide vs. what law should be?

Also, am I misunderstanding conception? Conception is ejaculating in to the woman, right? I mean we can't really differentiate between what actually occurred within each woman. So, in essence you ban every single form of "abortion" that takes place after the coitus? No Plan B or anything related. Even some female birth controls wouldn't work, right?

 

[naturalmwa]

As soon as I saw this post, I knew no pro abortionist would address it. They can't logically.

He was expressing a pro abortion viewpoint. Why would the civil rights crowd kick dust in the face of an ally.

 

[naturalmwa]

I believe the same as you

You realize this makes you a "pro abortionist," right?

 

[Tom Paris]

As soon as I saw this post, I knew no pro abortionist would address it. They can't logically.

I guess I would be an "abortionist"...and I agree with SEC's post and that is what I voted...20 weeks. 99% of abortions are performed by 21 weeks, so this seems about right. Again, I am pretty hardcore pro abortion, but even I think one should make her decision shortly after discovering she is pregnant.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I am entirely confused.

How are you "at conception" but Pro-Choice? Are you saying what you, personally, would decide vs. what law should be?

Also, am I misunderstanding conception? Conception is ejaculating in to the woman, right? I mean we can't really differentiate between what actually occurred within each woman. So, in essence you ban every single form of "abortion" that takes place after the coitus? No Plan B or anything related. Even some female birth controls wouldn't work, right?

Its not hard to understand. Not every episode of sexual intercourse produces a pregnancy. So no, its not every time there is sex.

I am pro-choice because I would rather it be above board than be provided in back alley type operations for the poor while the rich go offshore. I don't like it. I find its use as a method of birth control particularly repulsive.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Its not hard to understand. Not every episode of sexual intercourse produces a pregnancy. So no, its not every time there is sex.

I am pro-choice because I would rather it be above board than be provided in back alley type operations for the poor while the rich go offshore. I don't like it. I find its use as a method of birth control particularly repulsive.

What? You appear to have posted that you would ban it at conception, which I believe is the time of the sex. Of course it isn't every sex....it is moot if there is no pregnancy. If you ban it at conception, than there can be NO after-coitus birth control/abortion..........right?

I'm asking, because it simply doesn't fit with logic.

If, on the other hand, you are talking, personally, not legally, I guess I can understand it.