Log In Sign Up

PURELY a hypothetical


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
  #1  
April 28th, 2007, 10:37 PM
mommyKathyX3
Guest
Posts: n/a
SOME people say that a baby isnt really a "baby" until it can sustain life outside the womb without the mother. They say that abortions up to that point are acceptable cause the fetus is dependant on the mother. SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, that science made it so that a fetus could be removed and put in a "tube or something of the sort" and didnt technically NEED the mother, then you could say that the mother in ANY situation is only the carrier for this baby, and the mother isnt really a necessity, cause there are other means. You cant use the argument of "up until the point of viability" I know some of you are going to say, NOPE STILL HER CHOICE, but I'm curious about those who are in the middle about this stuff. Maybe my though is completly jumbled though cause its getting late.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
April 29th, 2007, 12:06 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ohio
Posts: 3,657
Okay if they are willing to take the fetus out and put it in the tube or whatever a mother should have the right to do that if she wishes. I still think she should be able to remain custody of the fetus or allow it to be adopted. I would be fine with letting abortion go unless fetus abnormalities. However it would have to be available to anyone.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
April 29th, 2007, 07:07 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
If mom could just tell doctors to put the fetus in an incubator/tube/whatever, thus ending her pregnancy while preserving the baby's life, I think that would be a win-win situation.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #4  
April 29th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
If mom could just tell doctors to put the fetus in an incubator/tube/whatever, thus ending her pregnancy while preserving the baby's life, I think that would be a win-win situation.[/b]
I agree. As long as she can sign something that ends her parental rights as well.
__________________
Mum to Ross, Elliot, Jack, Jasmine and Evie
Reply With Quote
  #6  
April 29th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Caeden'sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
There would be such huge moral and ethical implications for such science that I doubt it will ever come to pass.[/b]
Okay, but here's what i don't get... If there are moral and ethical implications, and people feel that if it WERE available it should be used... then how can you all say that a fetus is not a human/person/being with rights? Seems to me it's either one or the other... Either it is truly just "a clump of cells" and it shouldn't matter not matter what, or it's a human being with rights, and deserves life no matter what, (self-defense aside).

I just get confused about some of the stances on abortion, because it seems that for the most part there IS a recognition that it is a human life, but for some reason people are willing to overlook that. I don't get it...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
April 29th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Caeden'sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>
There would be such huge moral and ethical implications for such science that I doubt it will ever come to pass.[/b]
Okay, but here's what i don't get... If there are moral and ethical implications, and people feel that if it WERE available it should be used... then how can you all say that a fetus is not a human/person/being with rights? Seems to me it's either one or the other... Either it is truly just "a clump of cells" and it shouldn't matter not matter what, or it's a human being with rights, and deserves life no matter what, (self-defense aside).

I just get confused about some of the stances on abortion, because it seems that for the most part there IS a recognition that it is a human life, but for some reason people are willing to overlook that. I don't get it...
[/b][/quote]

I think that if that science were available it would be illegal for many of the same reason that cloning humans are illegal. Those fetuses would not be protected under any "human rights" law currently in place, nor could they be in a manner that was fair and equitable by law. They would be little better than someone's science project as subject to the same fallibility as all other lab specimens.

And that's my biggest opposition to anti-abortion. It's not fair and equitable under law to elevate only ONE subset of humanity to a status that supersedes the rights of all other humans.

Now, if someone could come up with equal rights that protect fetuses as equally and fairly as the rest of the population (ie - they are not entitled to the unfettered use of another's human body for existence) then we'd be able to come to a middle ground.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, with abortion debate is that there is no fair clear dividing line for when human life begins in the sense that they are entitled to the same set of rights as the rest of us. Is it at conception? Is it after the potential for separate and independent life passes and the child is able to self sustain? Is it at the point of viability? Is it before conception since the potential of life is sacred? (And if we want to go down that slippery slope) then should hormonal birth control be outlawed as well? Should sex except for procreation be outlawed?

I realize that I'm being a wee bit over dramatic, but my point is that if we cannot all come to a fair and equal agreement on all of it, then the rest of it is likely to remain a debate.

Women have been inducing abortions since they learned to boil herbs. It's as old as time and while there have always been people who oppose it, there will always be people who will do it.

I simply think that we should all be granted the same rights under law and the rest is a personal choice that I'm unwilling to enforce my own morality upon. If it cannot be fair and equitable to all of the population, then it cannot be enforced.

I may believe that abortion is immoral, but I've yet to find a solution that is fair to all subsets of humanity and society. Until such time, I will support everyone's choice to make such moral reproductive decisions for themselves. (Some think birth control is immoral, but we don't outlaw that.)

I would support a bill that clearly defines viability, but it's seemingly impossible for anyone to draw a definitive line for such.
[/b][/quote]

Okay, but then by your reasoning, aren't we elevating the mother's rights above the fetus' by allowing abortion? So that wouldn't be fair either...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
April 29th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Caeden&#39;sMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, but then by your reasoning, aren't we elevating the mother's rights above the fetus' by allowing abortion? So that wouldn't be fair either...[/b]
According to the law as it is now, no one is elevated. Everyone has the same fair and equitable rights.

The only way that changes is if we apply human rights as we know them to a fetus, because that elevates that section of humanity above (again, from a legal rights stand-point as we all know it) the rest of the population. That would give them rights that no other section of our society is allowed.

It's not fair if it isn't the same for everyone. And that is my objection to it.

I hope that made more sense.


I'm not your typical pro-choice person in that I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion, and I am pro-life in that I'm not anti-life. Sigh. I hate labels.
[/b]
I still don't see how you're giving the fetus "more" rights than the mother. But i don't want to turn this into another circular debate like the other one, so i'll just leave it at that...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
April 29th, 2007, 07:25 PM
quietsong's Avatar Just Another Slacker Mom
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 42,367
Send a message via MSN to quietsong
My question is, what would the difference be between taking a baby at 6 weeks and sustaining them artificially and artificially sustaining a 20 week baby that was delivered preterm, from the ethical standpoint? Both, at one point, would certainly have died, but were kept alive by scientific means.

IMO, it would be viewed in a different light from cloning because the life already exists through natural means, science would just be sustaining it after the mother could/would not. Yes, the reason the fetus would be moved to medical support would be different, but I think it would be accepted largely as saving life, not creating it.

Me? I'm all for it and hope it does come to pass some day.
__________________



Visit My Blog, and come join me at the JM Blogs!
Thank you Jaidynsmum for the siggy!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
April 29th, 2007, 09:57 PM
mommyKathyX3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
My question is, what would the difference be between taking a baby at 6 weeks and sustaining them artificially and artificially sustaining a 20 week baby that was delivered preterm, from the ethical standpoint? Both, at one point, would certainly have died, but were kept alive by scientific means.

IMO, it would be viewed in a different light from cloning because the life already exists through natural means, science would just be sustaining it after the mother could/would not. Yes, the reason the fetus would be moved to medical support would be different, but I think it would be accepted largely as saving life, not creating it.

Me? I'm all for it and hope it does come to pass some day.[/b]
Hehehehe your uncovering my evil plan!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
April 30th, 2007, 03:31 AM
quietsong's Avatar Just Another Slacker Mom
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 42,367
Send a message via MSN to quietsong
Quote:
Hehehehe your uncovering my evil plan! [/b]
Doh! Was I not supposed to??
__________________



Visit My Blog, and come join me at the JM Blogs!
Thank you Jaidynsmum for the siggy!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
April 30th, 2007, 10:23 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
SOME people say that a baby isnt really a "baby" until it can sustain life outside the womb without the mother. They say that abortions up to that point are acceptable cause the fetus is dependant on the mother. SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, that science made it so that a fetus could be removed and put in a "tube or something of the sort" and didnt technically NEED the mother, then you could say that the mother in ANY situation is only the carrier for this baby, and the mother isnt really a necessity, cause there are other means. You cant use the argument of "up until the point of viability" I know some of you are going to say, NOPE STILL HER CHOICE, but I'm curious about those who are in the middle about this stuff. Maybe my though is completly jumbled though cause its getting late. [/b]
Actually I talked about this a few months back and it didn't go over well for some reason. To me, choices are the best idea. If we can give this choice to some women who want it, why not? (That said, I know that there are tons of babies without homes now, the adoption policies are out of hand and this just sets up people to harvest people illegally.)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
May 11th, 2007, 01:22 PM
littleln's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,145
Ummm... but who would pay for that? I mean seriously, in many cases one of the major drivers for having an abortion in the first place is financial: the mother and/or father cannot financially support a child. If this test tube thing were an option, it would cost a fortune I'm sure. Who would pay for this, the state? The govt can't even pay for all of the BORN unwanted children, let alone a million unwanted test tube babies per year. This is just flat out unrealistic.
__________________

Thanks to pattiandthemoos for the great siggy!



<div align="center"></div>

<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #17  
May 11th, 2007, 02:13 PM
mommyKathyX3
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are women who have abortions because carrying a pregancy to term would injure them or possibly kill them. THis hypothetically could eliminate that possibility, but that isnt the point I was getting at anyway. Its improbable, not not impossible.
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 06:06 AM.



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