Log In Sign Up

Adoption vs Abortion


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #21  
January 7th, 2011, 02:44 AM
MindyRambo's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 801
I see "Carry and keep" and "carry and give" as the same decision vs two separate ones. So I see three initial choices, rather than the two "carry it" or "end it."


Keskes, yeah I understand what you mean. I think the reason I feel it is different is because even if you make an adoption plan when you are one month pregnant, nothing can be final... Not until so many days after you've given birth do you have to make a final decision (days vary by states I believe) An ethical adoption worker will tell you that you really have no idea what you will decide until after baby is born. Unethical adoption agencies will try to make the mother sign the second the baby is out and that is wrong imo.

I don't think it is selfish thinking you would not be strong enough to give up the baby, and I don't think it's selfish when someone who originally made an adoption plan to back out once the baby is born. It's not like they planned a deception, it's a natural reponse that once we see our babies, nothing else matters. Of course they have to be realistic and if there is no possible way they can care for the child, then it may be the only option.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
January 7th, 2011, 03:14 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
When we make moral claims like "abortion is wrong", what we are referring to is concerns for the well-being of people. When one asserts that it is wrong to kill a fertilized egg what they are really doing is saying that it is wrong for someone to take away their desire that the fertilized egg be allowed to develop into a baby. This is due to a projection of our own desires and not relating to the actual well-being of the fertilized egg. A fertilized egg is not developed enough to have any sort of well-being concerns. Now, the fertilized egg may develop into something which eventually has sensations and desires and can suffer harms. It would then be valid to take into account the well-being of that new “person”, but you must determine when that person comes to exist. In the middle is a big gray area, but just because there is a heart beating or a brain that does not mean the fetus is sufficiently developed to the point that there are concerns of well-being inherent to the fetus, itself.


Certainly, if the mother desires to have a baby then her own emotional well-being should be taken into account, as should the protection of her property (the developing fetus). But along the same lines, if she does not desire to carry a developing child to term then her emotional well-being should be taken into account there, too, and she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. Once a woman finds out she is pregnant, there should be a time of serious reflection, and if a commitment is made to carry the fetus to term then that commitment need to be stuck to. It is no different than if you choose to adopt a child, you are accepting the responsibility for another human's well-being. I oppose late-term abortions as a birth control method because by the third trimester there is clearly another person whose well-being needs to be taken into account.



If someone wants to carry a fetus to term and give it up for adoption, that should be their right. But we wouldn't want to force pregnant women to do that. There is a thought experiment called The Violinist which covers this last part in more detail.

Last edited by smt; January 7th, 2011 at 03:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
January 7th, 2011, 10:04 PM
angelsailor288's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 5,057
Yeah but by the time most women find out they are pregnant, they are carrying more than just a fertilized egg...

I'm not saying women dont have a choice and such, they do and it should stay that way, I just dont like when people try to say these "babies" or whatever you want to call them are less than human. As I said before by 10 weeks you can see a human on the ultrasound, not a fertilized egg.
__________________

Thank you jaidynsmum for my siggy!





Reply With Quote
  #24  
January 8th, 2011, 07:26 AM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelsailor288 View Post
Yeah but by the time most women find out they are pregnant, they are carrying more than just a fertilized egg...

I'm not saying women dont have a choice and such, they do and it should stay that way, I just dont like when people try to say these "babies" or whatever you want to call them are less than human. As I said before by 10 weeks you can see a human on the ultrasound, not a fertilized egg.
I agree that a pregnant woman is carrying more than a fertilized egg. They are also carrying the hope of having a baby. It is sort of like designing a house and having the plans for the house on paper. The plans are not an actual house, but they are something of value that embodies the desire for the house.

It is necessary to carefully define the words "baby" and "human". Would you call an egg which was just fertilized a human being or a baby? I would call it a potential one. A 10 week old fetus is certainly further along the process of becoming a human being, but does it have all the attributes of humanness? The reason I pick a fertilized egg as the point of discussion is because it is much easier to see that it is not yet a human being.

If a 10 week old fetus is a human being then why should a woman be allowed to terminate it in absence of a medical requirement? Wouldn't that be murder?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
January 8th, 2011, 01:09 PM
angelsailor288's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 5,057
Well if its not a human, what is it? It cant be anything other than a human, we dont carry other species.

In my heart I feel abortion is wrong because I do feel it is ending a human life, no matter how far along one is. However I know in my head it's something that should not be illegal.
__________________

Thank you jaidynsmum for my siggy!





Reply With Quote
  #26  
January 9th, 2011, 10:59 AM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelsailor288 View Post
Well if its not a human, what is it? It cant be anything other than a human, we dont carry other species.

In my heart I feel abortion is wrong because I do feel it is ending a human life, no matter how far along one is. However I know in my head it's something that should not be illegal.
I have to say, this is the position I have the most problem with. If someone truly believes a fetus is not a person yet then legalizing abortion makes sense. How can you say that you think abortion is wrong because it is killing a human life but yet you don't believe we should be protecting those most vulnerable of humans? Uggh - so basically you don't believe all human life is worth protecting?
Although I completely disagree with smt I understand his position because he does not believe the fetus is a person yet. I have no respect for your position.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
January 9th, 2011, 01:40 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelsailor288 View Post
Well if its not a human, what is it? It cant be anything other than a human, we dont carry other species.
The cells are certainly human in origin, but a "human being" is more than a simple collection of cells. A human being is a complex collection of trillions of cells in an organization where other emergent properties come to exist, such as consciousness, feelings, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDG View Post
Although I completely disagree with smt I understand his position because he does not believe the fetus is a person yet. I have no respect for your position.
I would say that without a doubt a fetus at the six month stage is a person. I would probably be willing to go lower than that, too.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
January 9th, 2011, 02:01 PM
angelsailor288's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 5,057
I dont really care what you have respect for... its my opinion, my belief, and I can have it all I want.

In a perfect world we wouldnt need abortion. In a perfect world women wouldnt get raped and become pregnant, 15 years old wouldnt be getting pregnant, mothers wouldnt have a medical issue requiring an abortion, there would be no need for do-it-yourself abortions if it were illegal. Unfortunatly this isnt a perfect world.
__________________

Thank you jaidynsmum for my siggy!






Last edited by angelsailor288; January 9th, 2011 at 02:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
January 9th, 2011, 02:48 PM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelsailor288 View Post
I dont really care what you have respect for... its my opinion, my belief, and I can have it all I want.

In a perfect world we wouldnt need abortion. In a perfect world women wouldnt get raped and become pregnant, 15 years old wouldnt be getting pregnant, mothers wouldnt have a medical issue requiring an abortion, there would be no need for do-it-yourself abortions if it were illegal. Unfortunatly this isnt a perfect world.
yes, and in a perfect world we wouldn't have people who believe those of a certain race aren't worth protecting, we wouldn't have people who believe those of a certain sexual orientation aren't worth protecting, we wouldn't have people who believe those with mental disabilities aren't worth protecting, and we wouldn't have people who believe that while a fetus is a human person, that human person isn't worth protecting. very unfortunate indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
January 9th, 2011, 04:05 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDG View Post
yes, and in a perfect world we wouldn't have people who believe those of a certain race aren't worth protecting, we wouldn't have people who believe those of a certain sexual orientation aren't worth protecting, we wouldn't have people who believe those with mental disabilities aren't worth protecting, and we wouldn't have people who believe that while a fetus is a human person, that human person isn't worth protecting. very unfortunate indeed.
Of course, all of this is dependent upon the definition of a "person". Can you give the definition you are using, along with 10 attributes of a human being that differentiates it from other organisms, so we can compare that to the various stages of a pregnancy?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
January 9th, 2011, 05:26 PM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by smt View Post
Of course, all of this is dependent upon the definition of a "person". ?
Right - that is what I am saying - the poster I am responding to claimed that she believed the fetus is a person but that abortion should still be legal. I don't really have a desire to debate what it means to be a person but rather to point out that her position is pretty offensive once you stop to think about what she is saying.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
January 18th, 2011, 07:28 PM
KiwiMommy's Avatar Ashlynn's Mama
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 3,779
I'm a bit late, but I do have some input..
First of all, I go by philosophy that if you're not ready to carry and parent a child, Don't have sex.
I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, sex is designed to create a child and that's it.
That aside, I am more than willing to admit that at the age of 17 I got pregnant. I was not ready to raise a child, but my beliefs go against abortion, and I couldn't bring myself to consider adoption. I won't go into detail about how I made it work, but I'm now an almost 19 year old single mother of an almost 1 year old.
But at the same time, I learned from my choices. I am not ready for a second child, so I have not had sex, nor do I intend to. I suppose that's a bit unrealistic for most people, however.
To focus more on the question at hand, I have mixed feelings. I don't think abortion should be used as birth control. Unless the child is a threat to your mental or physical well-being, I see no valid reason to be allowed to destroy it. At 6 weeks, it's true that the fetus is..well..a "Ball of cells". It does have a heartbeat.. and at 6 weeks my child looked like a BABY. I saw a head, and I saw a body. I saw a heart.
Do the hands make the baby? The feet? Fingers? Toes? Thought?
Do "Souls" exist and are we destroying one or are we simply destroying cells with a functioning organ?
The abortion debate never exactly has a "Answer" per-say, just what people believe.
That said,
I think if she REALLY can't care for the child, the child (Fetus? Cells?) deserves a chance at life, as they would have many, many years ago before the abortion procedure existed. So I think she should have chosen adoption. True, it may hurt her in a way.. but does letting someone destroy that child/cells hurt any less? From what I've heard, it hurts more.
__________________
Kailey(21) Cloth diapering, breastfeeding, babywearing, extended RF'ing, slightly crazy mommy to Ashlynn (3 1/2 * 1/28/10) and Matthew (13 months * 6/20/12)


Thank you peimum for the gorgeous siggy!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
January 19th, 2011, 09:52 AM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
I'm a bit late, but I do have some input..
...I see no valid reason to be allowed to destroy it.
A valid reason would be the woman's desire to not carry a child to term. Do you think a woman should be forced to carry a child to term? Should she be jailed if she doesn't want to carry it to term?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
At 6 weeks, it's true that the fetus is..well..a "Ball of cells". It does have a heartbeat.. and at 6 weeks my child looked like a BABY. I saw a head, and I saw a body. I saw a heart.
Do the hands make the baby? The feet? Fingers? Toes? Thought?
Yes, all those things make up a person... and more. The issue is when do those things all come together to make a person whose well-being should be taken into account. A brain which is incapable of processing anything probably doesn't need to be taken into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
Do "Souls" exist and are we destroying one or are we simply destroying cells with a functioning organ?
I know of no evidence for the existence of souls. To use "souls" as an argument it needs to be presented as an assertion, not a question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
I think if she REALLY can't care for the child, the child (Fetus? Cells?) deserves a chance at life, as they would have many, many years ago before the abortion procedure existed.
In what sense does a fertilized egg deserve anything? Take it back a step further. Does an unfertilized egg deserve to be fertilized?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
So I think she should have chosen adoption. True, it may hurt her in a way.. but does letting someone destroy that child/cells hurt any less?
You can't use the terms "child" and "cells" interchangeably. Unnecessarily destroying a person would be wrong, but perhaps destroying some cells would not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
From what I've heard, it hurts more.
For some women that may be the case, but for others the abortion choice hurts less. Who best to make that decision than the affected woman?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
January 19th, 2011, 02:11 PM
KiwiMommy's Avatar Ashlynn's Mama
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 3,779
Quote:
A valid reason would be the woman's desire to not carry a child to term. Do you think a woman should be forced to carry a child to term? Should she be jailed if she doesn't want to carry it to term?
Technically if she REALLY didn't want to carry the child to term, she'd find a way, but I never said a woman should be FORCED to carry to term. I just stated that I didn't support abortions for that reason.

Quote:
Yes, all those things make up a person... and more. The issue is when do those things all come together to make a person whose well-being should be taken into account. A brain which is incapable of processing anything probably doesn't need to be taken into account.
Why exactly should a brain incapable of processing anything need to be taken into account? You didn't say why you don't think they should. Or you probably don't think should, is what I should say.

Quote:
I know of no evidence for the existence of souls. To use "souls" as an argument it needs to be presented as an assertion, not a question.
I know of no evidence, either, but depending on someone's views, they may believe in them, and I felt that their possible existence should be stated in my views. If there was an existence of souls, when exactly would they be there? At birth? Conception?
Quote:
In what sense does a fertilized egg deserve anything? Take it back a step further. Does an unfertilized egg deserve to be fertilized?
Of course an unfertilized egg deserves to be fertilized! But the point of the matter is that NATURE decides if and when an egg will be fertilized. Who are we to play mother nature and decide if a child should or should not be allowed to have life?

Quote:
You can't use the terms "child" and "cells" interchangeably. Unnecessarily destroying a person would be wrong, but perhaps destroying some cells would not.
I fully agree with your statement. But I believe that a child is a child the moment of conception, therefore I consider it destroying a child. The "Cells" bit was for those who believe that the child is just a "bundle of cells". Which may be true at conception, but the child quickly becomes something with a heart, body, head, etc. Do cells have a heart? No.
Quote:
For some women that may be the case, but for others the abortion choice hurts less. Who best to make that decision than the affected woman?
So what you're saying is that only some women feel guilt for taking the life of something that they had created? That only some wish they could carry the child to term and raise it? I know of nobody who doesn't feel any guilt for their choice. They may move on and act like it doesn't bother them, but it still does. They took a life into their own hands and destroyed it.
__________________
Kailey(21) Cloth diapering, breastfeeding, babywearing, extended RF'ing, slightly crazy mommy to Ashlynn (3 1/2 * 1/28/10) and Matthew (13 months * 6/20/12)


Thank you peimum for the gorgeous siggy!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
January 19th, 2011, 03:29 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
Why exactly should a brain incapable of processing anything need to be taken into account?
Because I am concerned about the well-being of people. A being with a brain that is incapable of processing anything has no well-being related concerns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
I know of no evidence, either, but depending on someone's views, they may believe in them, and I felt that their possible existence should be stated in my views. If there was an existence of souls, when exactly would they be there? At birth? Conception?
I don't believe in any sort of soul and have seen no evidence of any such thing. It is not an issue of concern for me. The fact that people believe in souls doesn't mean that it is something anyone should take seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
Of course an unfertilized egg deserves to be fertilized! But the point of the matter is that NATURE decides if and when an egg will be fertilized. Who are we to play mother nature and decide if a child should or should not be allowed to have life?
An egg, fertilized or not, has not performed an action which merits some sort of response. This would be like saying that a rock deserves to roll downhill. "Nature" is not a prescriptive term regarding what should be done, it is a descriptive term that describes what happens in reality. Nature doesn't "decide" anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
I fully agree with your statement. But I believe that a child is a child the moment of conception, therefore I consider it destroying a child.
I think you are playing very loose with the word "child". I'm going to have to ask that you define the word "child". Please do it in such a way that differentiates it from other organisms. Please also list a few attributes of a child which differentiates it from animals. That way we can compare a fertilized egg with the definition of a child to see if they match up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
The "Cells" bit was for those who believe that the child is just a "bundle of cells". Which may be true at conception, but the child quickly becomes something with a heart, body, head, etc. Do cells have a heart? No.
For the sake of the discussion, let's use the extreme ends of the spectrum of development since we both agree that at some point a fertilized egg becomes a person (fertilized egg vs. 8 month old fetus).

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
So what you're saying is that only some women feel guilt for taking the life of something that they had created? That only some wish they could carry the child to term and raise it? I know of nobody who doesn't feel any guilt for their choice. They may move on and act like it doesn't bother them, but it still does. They took a life into their own hands and destroyed it.
Again, you are throwing around the terms "child" and "a life" rather loosely. I don't believe that a fertilized egg fits the definition of a child or "a life". I also don't think you have the authority to speak about what other women feel.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
January 19th, 2011, 05:22 PM
KiwiMommy's Avatar Ashlynn's Mama
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by smt View Post
Because I am concerned about the well-being of people. A being with a brain that is incapable of processing anything has no well-being related concerns.
A being with a brain incapable of processing anything has no concerns about anything, nevermind well-being, but you called it a being, yes? Please, do explain your definition of a "being", if we are discussing definitions now. I don't see a being as a ball of cells.

Quote:
I don't believe in any sort of soul and have seen no evidence of any such thing. It is not an issue of concern for me. The fact that people believe in souls doesn't mean that it is something anyone should take seriously.
Why don't you believe in souls? I take it seriously because, though I don't believe in souls, I don't not believe in them either, so I use the term loosely. I have no evidence of a soul's existence, but also don't have evidence that it doesn't exist. So for the sake of argument, I try to see both sides of the matter.

Quote:
An egg, fertilized or not, has not performed an action which merits some sort of response. This would be like saying that a rock deserves to roll downhill. "Nature" is not a prescriptive term regarding what should be done, it is a descriptive term that describes what happens in reality. Nature doesn't "decide" anything.
But Nature does decide things. What decides if there will be a hurricane? An earthquake? What decides if you get a stomach virus? It's not "science". Science more describes a human's way of interfering with nature. Nature, however, decides when and if things will happen. I see no need to interfere with it in the sense of, and I loosely use this term, "playing God" over who can and cannot survive when under the circumstance of their time in the womb where they would "normally" survive.


Quote:
I think you are playing very loose with the word "child". I'm going to have to ask that you define the word "child". Please do it in such a way that differentiates it from other organisms. Please also list a few attributes of a child which differentiates it from animals. That way we can compare a fertilized egg with the definition of a child to see if they match up.
My definition of a child is simple. A human being that is unable to fully think through their actions and consequences and/or is not of a mature adult size. A child has a beating HUMAN heart, human DNA, and has or will have the ability to think rationally at some point in their life if carried to term and survives to adulthood without any type of brain damage or just plain immaturity. In that sense, an unborn child is still a child. They are not at mature, adult size and cannot fully think through there actions (technically they cannot at all, but I never once said that they could think). Though true they may suffer some type of damage in the womb, or outside of it, they are still considered a child. And, yes, I am aware that my definition could place fully grown men and women under the "child" category. My father, for example, cannot think rationally. He cannot think through his actions, either. As far as he is concerned, life is whatever the heck he feels like doing, no matter the consequences. So, in my eyes, he is a child.

Quote:
For the sake of the discussion, let's use the extreme ends of the spectrum of development since we both agree that at some point a fertilized egg becomes a person (fertilized egg vs. 8 month old fetus).
Sounds good to me.

Quote:
Again, you are throwing around the terms "child" and "a life" rather loosely. I don't believe that a fertilized egg fits the definition of a child or "a life". I also don't think you have the authority to speak about what other women feel.
Technically I don't have the "authority" to speak about what other women feel, but I speak from my experience with my friend's feelings, as well as the fact that there is a "Recovering from an Abortion Loss" board on JM. Why would there be such a board (and coined with the term "Loss") if only "some" women feel upset about the choice? Most of the boards on JM are here because a significant amount of women experience the same thing.
__________________
Kailey(21) Cloth diapering, breastfeeding, babywearing, extended RF'ing, slightly crazy mommy to Ashlynn (3 1/2 * 1/28/10) and Matthew (13 months * 6/20/12)


Thank you peimum for the gorgeous siggy!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
January 20th, 2011, 07:35 AM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
Please, do explain your definition of a "being", if we are discussing definitions now. I don't see a being as a ball of cells.
I was using the term being as a thing which exists and could have been capable of brain function, but in this case, isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
Why don't you believe in souls? I take it seriously because, though I don't believe in souls, I don't not believe in them either, so I use the term loosely. I have no evidence of a soul's existence, but also don't have evidence that it doesn't exist. So for the sake of argument, I try to see both sides of the matter.
I don't believe in souls for the same reason you probably don't believe in unicorns, fairies, cupids, Easter bunnies and leprechauns. There is no evidence of their existence. Sure, I suppose all those things could exist, but we have no reason to believe they do. We also have reasons to believe they don't exist. There is no rational reason to take them into account in any discussion. The fact that some people might believe that any of those things are real is irrelevant in absence of credible evidence of their existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
But Nature does decide things. What decides if there will be a hurricane? An earthquake? What decides if you get a stomach virus?
"Deciding" requires consciousness. What you are referring to is purely causal effects of matter moving through reality. There is no decision involved because unconscious matter has no means of self-change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
I see no need to interfere with it in the sense of, and I loosely use this term, "playing God" over who can and cannot survive when under the circumstance of their time in the womb where they would "normally" survive.
I can see a reason to interfere... for example, when a woman doesn't desire to carry a pregnancy to term. Why not interfere? Let's also be clear... when you use the terms "who" and "they" you are referring to pronouns which assume a person in existence. My argument is that early in the pregnancy no such person exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
My definition of a child is simple. A human being that is unable to fully think through their actions and consequences and/or is not of a mature adult size.
Sorry, but you can't just define a "child" as a "human being" when the term human being is also in question. Let's agree that a child is a young human being. So, please give your definition of a human being. List some of the attributes of a human being that differentiate it from other organisms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
A child has a beating HUMAN heart, human DNA, and has or will have the ability to think rationally at some point in their life if carried to term and survives to adulthood without any type of brain damage or just plain immaturity. In that sense, an unborn child is still a child.
Ok, so let's work with that definition for now. I think we can remove the part about "will have the ability" because we are talking about a current state of existence, not the potential after further development. Even I would agree that a fertilized egg has the potential to become a full human being. That does not make a fertilized egg a human being. It would be better to work with the phrase "has the capacity" to discuss the current state of existence. But let's say that the definition of "child" means it has to have a beating heart. Are you fine with abortion before there is a beating heart?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiMommy View Post
Technically I don't have the "authority" to speak about what other women feel, but I speak from my experience with my friend's feelings, as well as the fact that there is a "Recovering from an Abortion Loss" board on JM. Why would there be such a board (and coined with the term "Loss") if only "some" women feel upset about the choice? Most of the boards on JM are here because a significant amount of women experience the same thing.
It makes sense that a women that visits a "Recovering from an Abortion Loss" board would feel some sort of loss. Not all women have a need to visit such a board. It is sort of like the heart surgeon that seems the think everyone in the world has heart problems because that is all he ever sees. It may also be that women that had abortions don't need to feel badly about it and that what they are feeling is based on false ideas of the existence of human beings and improperly placed guilt.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
January 20th, 2011, 03:10 PM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Abortions cannot be done before there is a beating heart, and you've been told that before, SMT. Abortions cannot be done before 7 weeks because the conceptus is too small and the D&C wouldn't get it. By 7 weeks, the heart has been beating for 2 weeks.
You trot out the same questions to everyone that's new. You demand that they prove their points and when they do you claim it's irrelevant or whatever.

So I want some answers FROM you SMT. You go and answer all of your questions and I want at least 2 links from a RELIABLE and UNBIASED source to back up every single point you make. Since you rely so much on science and proof this shouldn't be a problem for you. If you can't provide that then YOUR entire argument is irrelevant.

As for a human not being a human at a certain stage because of the state of their existence, do you think everyone on life support should be unplugged because of their diminished brain function? Are they suddenly not a human then and deserve to be cut off at someone else's whim?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
January 20th, 2011, 04:29 PM
smt smt is offline
Mega Super Daddy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
Abortions cannot be done before there is a beating heart, and you've been told that before, SMT. Abortions cannot be done before 7 weeks because the conceptus is too small and the D&C wouldn't get it. By 7 weeks, the heart has been beating for 2 weeks.
That's fine. We can speak about this hypothetically, or use the morning after pill as an example, or some other means of birth control where a fertilized egg may be prevented from implanting. BTW, my understanding is that a gynecologist can perform an abortion at 4 weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
You trot out the same questions to everyone that's new. You demand that they prove their points and when they do you claim it's irrelevant or whatever.
No, I am presenting my arguments. If I say something is irrelevant then that is what I believe and I will state why. If someone wants to make the case that any given point actually is relevant then they are free to present that case. FTR, I would not make the case that a beating heart is the only requirement for defining a human being. I am just using that in this instance because it is what the previous poster presented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
So I want some answers FROM you SMT. You go and answer all of your questions and I want at least 2 links from a RELIABLE and UNBIASED source to back up every single point you make. Since you rely so much on science and proof this shouldn't be a problem for you. If you can't provide that then YOUR entire argument is irrelevant.
Sorry, but you will have to specify what claims you think I need to support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79 View Post
As for a human not being a human at a certain stage because of the state of their existence, do you think everyone on life support should be unplugged because of their diminished brain function? Are they suddenly not a human then and deserve to be cut off at someone else's whim?
It depends on the degree of diminished brain function and whether or not it is likely to be temporary or not. If it is likely permanent then, yes, I would say it is ethical for them to be unplugged. This is done every day in hospitals and I would say it is rarely, if ever, done on a whim.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
January 20th, 2011, 07:03 PM
foxfire_ga79
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. Morning after pill is just fine by me, and before there is a heart beat I don't care about the abortion pill. I also hold no blame to a woman who terminates due to legitimate medical reasons as determined by her doctor. If a doctor really can abort as early as 4 weeks (and thus meaning my own doctor lied to me) then as long as there is no heart beat, I'm Ok with. And I will always vote in favor of abortion remaining legal because the government officials have no business making medical decisions. They are not medical professionals.

2. Presenting your arguments needs to involve reliable sources to prove what you've said. I don't take your words alone as gospel. Pun intended. I don't believe what you believe so if you want me to acknowledge the validity of your argument then you better give me something substantial to go on.

3. All of them.

4. Diminished brain function with hope of recovery given a few months. If the person's brain functionality will be restored in a few months, is it Ok to unplug them now anyway because *right at this moment* they are not a person because *right at this moment* brain function is down?
Because a conceptus is precisely that. A human on life support. Given a few more months of life support, it will come out of its coma. People can chant "my body my choice" all they want but at the end of the day, the mother stopped someone else's heart, not her own. And that someone else was their own separate person. Not an extension of the mother like a finger nail that needed to be clipped. It is a separate human being (on life support waiting to come out of its coma) with its own heart, its own DNA and its own separate body. It's not an attachment, it is separate from the mother. Baby's blood and Mother's blood supply never cross. (Under normal circumstances.) So if you are Ok with someone choosing to stop the beating heart of their own conceptus, are you or are you not Ok with unplugging life support? Why?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0